| 1 |
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:32:55 +0100 |
| 2 |
Manuel Rüger <mrueg@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I recently noticed it twice, that it seems to be common practice to |
| 7 |
> remove a package without using the methods described in [1], but just |
| 8 |
> dropping it from cvs. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> From my observations packages removed without last-rites could be |
| 11 |
> characterized by this: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> - it was a dependency of another package |
| 14 |
> - this package dropped / incorporated the dependency |
| 15 |
> - no other packages depend on it |
| 16 |
> - there are possible forks or updates, but maintainer doesn't care^W^W |
| 17 |
> has no interest |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> This might work for the main tree, but it won't for overlays, that might |
| 20 |
> also depend on these packages (because they have a patched / older |
| 21 |
> version of your maintained package). |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Please stop killing user experience or document this "feature" in [1]. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Best regards, |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Manuel |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/ebuild-maintenance/index.html |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I wasn't aware last-riting had become general policy. It was originally |
| 32 |
started by the treecleaner team to give people time to object to |
| 33 |
maintainer-needed removals, and others thought it was a good idea, but it was |
| 34 |
always up to the discretion of the maintainer back then. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'm not one of the offenders, just pointing out maybe some people missed the |
| 37 |
policy change as I did. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk |
| 42 |
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463 |
Archives