1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Dne 12.1.2010 21:33, Mike Frysinger napsal(a): |
5 |
> On Monday 11 January 2010 22:43:18 Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
6 |
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:37 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote: |
7 |
>>> On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote: |
8 |
>>>> As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal. |
11 |
>>> It would be conspicuous in its absence. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> Would it make sense to post on -dev BEFORE masking packages like this? |
14 |
>>> I'm sure there are lots of people who would chip in before something |
15 |
>>> like this dies. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> (A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich) |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>> Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners: |
20 |
>> The fact is, some of us have never heard of "inn" and until Gentoo has |
21 |
>> some sort of "popularity tracking" software/tool, the treecleaners will |
22 |
>> continue to mask unmaintained software. We can't possible know about every |
23 |
>> package in the tree and if it looks like it is unmaintained (open bugs w/o |
24 |
>> action) then we will mask it for removal unless someone fixes it and |
25 |
>> maintains it. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> you need to fix your filter then. an "open bug" is not an acceptable reason |
28 |
> for masking a package. if you're going to clean a package, you need to |
29 |
> research actual reasons to mask & punt. |
30 |
> -mike |
31 |
Dont be joking, |
32 |
Your approach of adding new packages to main tree is that you add them |
33 |
with empty metadata.xml and we have to remove them in few years because |
34 |
they are steaming piles of bugs... |
35 |
|
36 |
Lack of maintainer and open bugs are valid reasons. |
37 |
And since WE want to enable as-needed as default at some time we need to |
38 |
work on the bugs -> if packages have no maintainer and fails it we will |
39 |
have to punt them (that bug was open for 2 years+, and clearly there |
40 |
were even newer versions none bothered to bump to). If anyone picks them |
41 |
up and fix in the mask for cleaning that's great, because that is the |
42 |
reason for having that mask, so people can be loud about removal. We |
43 |
could simply punt things at the moment we want without any notice if we |
44 |
would not care about user responses for such actions. |
45 |
|
46 |
Currently there are 109 reason [1] why as-needed cant be done, if the |
47 |
package has maintainer he should work on it, otherwise byes, there are |
48 |
quite large unmaintained areas in the tree we have to care about. |
49 |
|
50 |
[1] |
51 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=182324,249450,226909,299077,247869,248195,248437,285747,280705,247931,297193,278310,207605,284921,247067,248586,277655,246755,277206,249295,248548,247043,248678,278423,247088,282426,247777,246729,246961,274385,278104,300515,248345,277169,248356,277227,248169,295199,247761,277769,247444,294396,247768,247844,276303,278069,276250,246726,257996,247731,247054,277925,276873,294971,278100,297025,248549,247779,276295,247712,260226,280922,248556,248163,248192,298152,274700,265643,257918,277938,287933,248143,248571,276928,226863,247991,226885,248152,248573,247044,296631,248351,248552,247748,226917,246875,248555,294738,277794,277050,246970,248159,248605,247919,276506,297409,277640,248357,294878,248579,132992,248577,248551,278086,276796,248411,299478,248580,276302 |
52 |
|
53 |
- -------- |
54 |
Tomáš Chvátal |
55 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Overlays/QA/X11] |
56 |
E-Mail : scarabeus@g.o |
57 |
GnuPG FP : 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587 |
58 |
GnuPG ID : 03414587 |
59 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
60 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) |
61 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
62 |
|
63 |
iEYEARECAAYFAktM4NAACgkQHB6c3gNBRYeCSQCfSWnP07SLw9sBLUENdN9ZAEYT |
64 |
kcoAoLSM6ohZ3wzn47LdcEWDq8oTGQZk |
65 |
=1n2p |
66 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |