Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:09:48 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 27 October 2009 02:07:02 Ryan Hill wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:48:39 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>>> James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> When you first psoted this list I noticed some (or several?) live
>>>>>> ebuilds.  Git-9999 is the one I remember.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those should not get nuked during global cleanups, as they are likely
>>>>>> to be in active use notwithstanding their keywording or masking.
>>>>> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to EAPI 2.
>>>>> If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we want to keep live
>>>>> ebuilds for them around?
>>>> Your stated goal was to remove unused ebuilds, which live ebuilds are
>>>> not, regardless of the status of the maintainer.  And I'm pretty sure
>>>> git has an active maintainer. :P
>>> indeed.  you really should file bugs for these instead of deleting
>>> ebuilds on people who missed a thread on gentoo-dev.
>> All developers are required to follow gentoo-dev-announce. If they don't
>> follow that, it can't be expected for them to follow bugzilla either.
> 
> that's a poor excuse.  file bugs instead of tromping on other people's 
> packages since you clearly have a list of ebuilds you shouldnt be removing and 
> you dont intend to fix.  i doubt Ryan's example of git-9999 is the only one.
> -mike

Normally old versions are not kept around as already said if you read
the thread. Live ebuilds shouldn't really have been in the original list
with my intended logic. For them I will usually just migrate them to
EAPI 2 like with other packages we have been touching. Using a tracker
bug makes sense if you expect some action from individual maintainers
which is not the case here as they can just leave the job to people
nuking built_with_use like me.

Regards,
Petteri