1 |
Le Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:37:19PM +0000, Duncan a écrit: |
2 |
> FWIW, I feel for the treecleaners. It's a job with little |
3 |
> thanks and lots of chance to make someone mad at you, but I'm |
4 |
> glad /someone's/ doing it! =:^) |
5 |
|
6 |
Yeah. I'm glad each time I see old things getting deleted, |
7 |
abandoned software and such. So, yeah, thanks, treecleaners. |
8 |
Your job is as easy as a sysadmin's one: no one knows you exist, |
9 |
except when someone needs to scream at you... |
10 |
|
11 |
> In the case of the INNs of the tree, that should prevent |
12 |
> masking entirely, since popular packages will certainly have |
13 |
> someone raising the roof on just the warning, within a day or |
14 |
> two. That was certainly the case here. No masking means |
15 |
> ordinary users won't have to ever know it happened. |
16 |
|
17 |
Well, as it happens, I knew it was being masked because I got the |
18 |
mail warning from gentoo-dev-announce, which is unfortunately a |
19 |
bit badly advertised. |
20 |
|
21 |
Anyway, I would have scratched my head far, far more if I had to |
22 |
understand WTF portage would complain about an inn masked... I |
23 |
don't care when it's small, unused package -- last time it was |
24 |
lprof, and I didn't really care, it was a bit still here from a |
25 |
package I installed years ago, and which passed through depclean. |
26 |
|
27 |
So, what about something like: |
28 |
* mail on gentoo-dev-announce, saying "heads up. mask in one week" |
29 |
* one week later, mask and "classical" mail "foo/bar masked" |
30 |
|
31 |
I have absolutely no idea how much work it requires, so I won't |
32 |
complain if TC says it's too complicated/unpratical/etc. |
33 |
|
34 |
BTW, I have no knowledge of the concept of proxy-maintainer, I'll |
35 |
look at it tomorrow, it's 2am here... :) I don't even think I |
36 |
ever heard of it before, but I didn't brush my gentoo-fu for a |
37 |
few years, that may explain... |
38 |
|
39 |
Arnaud. |