| 1 |
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:40:17 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras |
| 5 |
> <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought |
| 7 |
> > that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming |
| 8 |
> > it can be rescued). Providing fixes without becoming the maintainer |
| 9 |
> > is also a viable solution, which is probably something we need to |
| 10 |
> > add to that page as well. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I started something at: |
| 13 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/treeclean.txt |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It is relief to see that someone is trying to listen and do something |
| 16 |
constructive about this long standing problem. However, with all due |
| 17 |
respect, I do not think that the document will help very much. I |
| 18 |
think most users are aware of the possibilities they have to save a |
| 19 |
package. They just do not have will, time or priority to do so for a |
| 20 |
particular package they are using (this fact is essential to accept in |
| 21 |
order to understand the problem here). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What I have expressed in rather theatrical way in my previous mail, is |
| 24 |
the fact that unresolved bugs contributes to the package removal. |
| 25 |
This may lead to _not_ reporting a bugs on purpose in order to lower |
| 26 |
the possibility that the package will be removed. I may say that I am |
| 27 |
afraid to submit a bug for some packages and for some cases I |
| 28 |
willingly do not report any for the very same reason. Sad but true. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
How it can be mitigated? In my opinion by applying 30 days removal |
| 31 |
policy only to packages that are completely broken. So packages that |
| 32 |
-- according to current policy -- would have been 30d masked for |
| 33 |
removal, would be _just masked_ (no 30d removal). This has following |
| 34 |
advantages: |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
1. Users can submit as many bugs as they want without being afraid |
| 37 |
that it will contribute to removal of the package. Documented bugs |
| 38 |
are better than hidden bugs. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
2. Users can still use the package while being aware that it is |
| 41 |
partially broken. They can find known bugs in bugzilla. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
3. Users can still submit new bugs or workarounds to existing bugs. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
4. Users can submit patches, effectively maintain the package even no |
| 46 |
official proxy maintainer was established. (If from time to time |
| 47 |
some dev would bring provided patches to the tree, even better.) |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
5. Since the mask period will be likely longer than 30d there is a |
| 50 |
bigger chance that someone will take proxy/maintainership, or that |
| 51 |
someone will submit provided patches to the upstream. Even users |
| 52 |
or devs that usually do not have will, time or priority to take |
| 53 |
care of the particular package could find some -- e. g. during |
| 54 |
summer or so -- and provide a patch. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
During the mask period Gentoo will basically be providing just the |
| 57 |
infrastructure. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Sorry that I am addressing the policy here even you explicitly said in |
| 60 |
the document not to do so. I will not make this post longer than it |
| 61 |
is in trying to explain why I am doing it. I just hope you (and other |
| 62 |
devs) will try to listen. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Robert |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Róbert Èeròanský |
| 69 |
E-mail: openhs@×××××××××.com |
| 70 |
Jabber: hs@××××××.sk |
Archives