| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>>>> On Sun, 22 May 2022, Hanno Böck wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I'm not sure about Google code. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> While it's no longer an active site, it is still online in an |
| 7 |
>> archived state. We maintain plenty of packages that have no active |
| 8 |
>> upstream, and having a reference to an unmaintained previous upstream |
| 9 |
>> which still allows downloading the code and the repo archive seems |
| 10 |
>> like a good thing. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> The same is true for gitorious, but we have dropped those remote-ids |
| 13 |
> from the tree nevertheless: |
| 14 |
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=f8fd6bd07efee4d36a1babf55d6e69c7cb4a93d4 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> However, I think that your point is valid. So the basic question is |
| 17 |
> whether we should keep dead upstreams in that list, for archival |
| 18 |
> purposes? If the answer is yes, then consequently we should also keep |
| 19 |
> gitorious (and maybe revert above commit?). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
For gitorious, I went through all packages where that remote-id was |
| 22 |
dropped in the above mentioned commit. These packages were either |
| 23 |
last-rited, or moved to different hosting. So restoring gitorious in |
| 24 |
package metadata makes no sense for either of them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Also, https://gitorious.org/ has a security certificate that expired in |
| 27 |
early 2019. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Unless I see any objections here, I'll drop gitorious from the XML |
| 30 |
schema and the DTD tomorrow. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ulrich |
Archives