List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:09:48 Petteri Räty wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 October 2009 02:07:02 Ryan Hill wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:48:39 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>> James Cloos wrote:
> >>>> When you first psoted this list I noticed some (or several?) live
> >>>> ebuilds. Git-9999 is the one I remember.
> >>>> Those should not get nuked during global cleanups, as they are likely
> >>>> to be in active use notwithstanding their keywording or masking.
> >>> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to EAPI 2.
> >>> If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we want to keep live
> >>> ebuilds for them around?
> >> Your stated goal was to remove unused ebuilds, which live ebuilds are
> >> not, regardless of the status of the maintainer. And I'm pretty sure
> >> git has an active maintainer. :P
> > indeed. you really should file bugs for these instead of deleting
> > ebuilds on people who missed a thread on gentoo-dev.
> All developers are required to follow gentoo-dev-announce. If they don't
> follow that, it can't be expected for them to follow bugzilla either.
that's a poor excuse. file bugs instead of tromping on other people's
packages since you clearly have a list of ebuilds you shouldnt be removing and
you dont intend to fix. i doubt Ryan's example of git-9999 is the only one.
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)