| 1 |
On 03/13/2010 01:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the |
| 7 |
>>> consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for |
| 8 |
>>> everyone. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree. That's |
| 11 |
>> why we have a treecleaners project. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The treecleaners project is tasked with keeping these packages working, and |
| 14 |
> removing them only if there is no other alternative. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's the ideal situation, unfortunately treecleaners is currently so |
| 19 |
understaffed it's not necessarily always true |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
if a package is broken, and been in treecleaners queue for too long, and |
| 22 |
it would be a semi-trivial fix, it simply doesn't get done without manpower |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So devs: Please join treecleaners project :) |
Archives