| 1 |
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate |
| 3 |
> discussion. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages |
| 10 |
> > > > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are |
| 11 |
> > > > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to |
| 12 |
> > > > p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I |
| 13 |
> > > > remove them from the tree in 30 days. |
| 14 |
> > > > |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not. Not whether |
| 17 |
> > > upstream is more or less active. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them. However, |
| 20 |
> > > if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in |
| 21 |
> > > the repo, then they should probably stay. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > +1 |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Best regards, |
| 26 |
> > Andrew Savchenko |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the official |
| 29 |
> tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it doesn't |
| 30 |
> have an active maintainer. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I don't know why we haven't been using this, but using it more than we |
| 33 |
> have makes a lot of sense. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
When software is in the main tree, it is a subject of tree-wide |
| 36 |
changes like GLEP 67 update, package moves and so on. In a |
| 37 |
separated overlay it will be completely abandoned and it may create |
| 38 |
inter-overlay dependencies issues (e.g. when A is an old |
| 39 |
package from the tree and package B from some overlay depends on A, |
| 40 |
so if A will move to graveyard, B will be broken). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I completely do not understand why having "old" software in tree is |
| 43 |
a problem, if such software have no serious issues and is not |
| 44 |
blocking major progress. If software _is_ sufficiently broken, then |
| 45 |
indeed move it to graveyard. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
As I said yesterday on IRC, one of the greatest virtues of Gentoo |
| 48 |
is its ample spectra of packages available in the main tree. I do |
| 49 |
not understand why it should be killed for nothing. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Best regards, |
| 52 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives