1 |
>>>>> "Petteri" == Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
Petteri> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to |
4 |
Petteri> EAPI 2. If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we |
5 |
Petteri> want to keep live ebuilds for them around? |
6 |
|
7 |
What possible benefit could be had from dropping ebuilds for no other |
8 |
reason than their EAPI? |
9 |
|
10 |
(Incidently, since I mentioned it as the one I remembered from the first |
11 |
post, I see that git-9999 is EAPI 2 even though it does use built_with_use.) |
12 |
|
13 |
Any mass removal should be as conservative as possible in the list of |
14 |
things removed, just like anything which declares something unlawful |
15 |
should be interpreted narrowly. |
16 |
|
17 |
Your initial post indicated that you only wanted to drop ebuilds which |
18 |
were unlikely to be in use by users. Given the fact that most (all?) |
19 |
live ebuilds are masked, any automated tests for the likelyhood that |
20 |
an ebuild is in active use will, by definition, have false negatives |
21 |
when dealing with live ebuilds. (Where false negative means unlikely |
22 |
to be in use even though it, in fact, is in use.) |
23 |
|
24 |
And even if you did not intend to limit your removals as much as you |
25 |
indicated, it is still wrong to remove anything which the userbase |
26 |
actively uses. These are not ebuilds which are broken, just ones |
27 |
which, while functional, remain imperfect. |
28 |
|
29 |
-JimC |
30 |
-- |
31 |
James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |