| 1 |
Am 27.03.2011 22:44, schrieb Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> We shouldn't be punishing people for not becoming developers. I don't |
| 3 |
> want to use a distro that throws up warning messages every few months |
| 4 |
> because some package I've been using had its developer retire, and I'm |
| 5 |
> a developer. If it breaks and I care enough about it, I'll rescue it. |
| 6 |
> If I'm passionate about it, I'll step in before it breaks. Holding |
| 7 |
> users ransom is not the solution. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Well, but you need some way of communicate that certain packages are w/o |
| 10 |
a proper maintainer. Why else should someone step up? I, for instance, |
| 11 |
was quite surprised about the list of m-n packages and seeing that quite |
| 12 |
some packages I use are on that list. I would never had a look at it |
| 13 |
without this thread (or are users nowadays supposed to check |
| 14 |
metadata.xml on a regular basis?). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So, why not at least add some elog-like output at the end of an emerge |
| 17 |
run like "The following installed packages are without maintainer: |
| 18 |
$LIST. If you want to step up, please see $PROXY_MAINTAINER_URL." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And before you state "well - it is enough if someone steps up when it |
| 21 |
breaks": Even then it might get unnoticed, that the package is |
| 22 |
unmaintained. I never check thoroughly where the package gets assigned |
| 23 |
to during bug-wrangling, and I suppose that I'm not alone here. So the |
| 24 |
only thing one notices is a bug which never gets any response. And this |
| 25 |
is frustrating. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regarding the pro-active masking/removal: As a user I'd object to this. |
| 28 |
Please try a less obtrusive path first, like the info output I mentioned |
| 29 |
above. Seeing that used packages gets masked quite often spawns bad mood |
| 30 |
(at least in my experience and seeing reactions in forum threads). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
- René |
Archives