Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:53:27
Message-Id: m3ocntivwj.fsf@lugabout.jhcloos.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup by "Petteri Räty"
>>>>> "Petteri" == Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> writes:
Petteri> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to Petteri> EAPI 2. If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we Petteri> want to keep live ebuilds for them around? What possible benefit could be had from dropping ebuilds for no other reason than their EAPI? (Incidently, since I mentioned it as the one I remembered from the first post, I see that git-9999 is EAPI 2 even though it does use built_with_use.) Any mass removal should be as conservative as possible in the list of things removed, just like anything which declares something unlawful should be interpreted narrowly. Your initial post indicated that you only wanted to drop ebuilds which were unlikely to be in use by users. Given the fact that most (all?) live ebuilds are masked, any automated tests for the likelyhood that an ebuild is in active use will, by definition, have false negatives when dealing with live ebuilds. (Where false negative means unlikely to be in use even though it, in fact, is in use.) And even if you did not intend to limit your removals as much as you indicated, it is still wrong to remove anything which the userbase actively uses. These are not ebuilds which are broken, just ones which, while functional, remain imperfect. -JimC -- James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Replies