1 |
On Tuesday 12 January 2010 20:21:59 Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:32:06 +0200 |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > Thanks for saving this package. As Jeremy said, there is absolutely |
6 |
> > no way to measure the popularity of a package. So if it has no |
7 |
> > maintainer, and open bugs we have to mask it and announce it here. It |
8 |
> > is up to you whether you want to save it or not |
9 |
> |
10 |
> I don't think the (perceived) popularity of the package has anything to |
11 |
> do with it. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I do think maybe treecleaner@ needs to set up policies with regard to |
14 |
> methods of investigation, thoroughness, and transparency. In the case |
15 |
> at hand, treecleaner shouldn't have been called in (you're not the |
16 |
> bloody cavalry you know! ;-) in the first place, and should certainly |
17 |
> not have acted (so quickly). |
18 |
> |
19 |
> It's not clear to me generally what you (treecleaner@) all do and why |
20 |
> you do it - but it *is* clear that it's very easy to `rm -r *' to get |
21 |
> rid of some old stuff and that you may end up regretting it later. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Particularly, it looks like the net-mail, net-news and netmon herds are |
24 |
> understaffed and have been for a while, and I see a general shift of |
25 |
> developers towards desktop oriented packages and away from the nuts and |
26 |
> bolts that make it all go. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> I think (but have no facts apart from talking to people and handling |
29 |
> network package related bugs in every way possible) that our userbase |
30 |
> is still much more technically oriented. If that's all true, then doing |
31 |
> some `rm net-*/*' cleanups may well end up hurting Gentoo as you would |
32 |
> drive out more of the networking oriented people (users and developers) |
33 |
> that I feel we still need to support, and turn into Yet Another Desktop |
34 |
> Oriented Distro (which we also need, but that's already covered quite |
35 |
> well). |
36 |
So what do you suggest? Have old, unmaintained and broken ( or forgotten ) |
37 |
packages under those categories in order to preserve the "personality" of |
38 |
Gentoo? IMHO ( this is not a treecleaners@ opinion, i m just talking for my |
39 |
self ), announcing and masking a package is a good way to inform and wake up |
40 |
everybody to take care of this package if they really really want to stay on |
41 |
portage. Having broken and unmaintained packages on tree, just to say that we |
42 |
have plenty of packages on portage is not acceptable policy imho. So if you |
43 |
want a package, plz take care of it :) |
44 |
> |
45 |
> ISTR treecleaner@ already had some policy in place that requires some |
46 |
> $period to pass before you mask for removal. Maybe you should announce |
47 |
> an upcoming mask nice and early to keep that shock wave from reaching |
48 |
> users straight away. |
49 |
Having open bugs for months isn't a way to let everybody know that this |
50 |
package is broken for long time, so it is a valid candidate for removal? |
51 |
Should we send that via e-mail as well? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Regards, |
55 |
> jer |
56 |
> |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
60 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
61 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |