| 1 |
On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Nope and they should usually be kept but we can't make a hard rule |
| 4 |
> because there are cases where the old ebuilds don't work any more. If |
| 5 |
> you find that a broken version slipped the cracks of the arch teams |
| 6 |
> and |
| 7 |
> made it to stable with the old version removed, file a bug to |
| 8 |
> bugs.gentoo.org and hopefully the maintainer learns from his/her |
| 9 |
> mistake |
| 10 |
> of removing it too soon. If the maintainer keeps on doing the same |
| 11 |
> thing, then you can try to escalate things to qa/devrel. If you are |
| 12 |
> using ~arch, then encountering some broken stuff is fully expected, |
| 13 |
> just |
| 14 |
> file a bug and the maintainer is expected to react in a timely manner. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I agree, if an ebuild is broken then it should be removed since it |
| 17 |
doesn't work at all. But rather than exchanging the broken ebuild |
| 18 |
with a version bump it is sometimes more advisable to repair the |
| 19 |
broken ebuild and increase the integer of -rx instead of replacing |
| 20 |
the broken ebuild with a masked one. Very often bugs are filed after |
| 21 |
a package has been unmasked and so it is better to have a working |
| 22 |
older ebuild. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Of course, this is just a case scenario which may happen. To prevent |
| 25 |
such rare cases is in mind of every user. Well, I still think, leave |
| 26 |
it up to the users and give them time to choose between ebuilds and |
| 27 |
move them to overlay, instead of forcing them to query the source for |
| 28 |
dead packages.-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives