| 1 |
24.03.2013 13:15, Róbert Čerňanský пишет: |
| 2 |
> And that is why I now appeal to users: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> _Do not report bugs to Gentoo unless a package is completely broken._ |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Because what you will get in return? Package removed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If package is broken, upstream is dead/unresponsive and nobody wants or |
| 9 |
can fix it - yeah, it will be treecleaned. Sooner or later. Cause we |
| 10 |
should keep some QA standarts that are expected by users. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> A package with bugs has a greater user value than no package at all. |
| 13 |
> Until Gentoo does not understands that and does not change its removal |
| 14 |
> policy accordingly, and provides technical means to reflect it*, it is |
| 15 |
> the only user-viable** way how to keep a package in the tree as long as |
| 16 |
> possible. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> * Which could be e. g. masking a package until it is completely |
| 19 |
> broken. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> ** No, I do not want to become a developer. No, I do not want to |
| 22 |
> maintain a package. I am the user, I want using it. (It does not |
| 23 |
> mean that I do not contribute to the community, I just have other |
| 24 |
> ways/projects to do so.) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If you, as user, want to use package that does not fullfill minimum QA |
| 27 |
requirements, nobody can stop your from installing it from your local |
| 28 |
overlay. You can not rely on support through bugzilla from that moment, |
| 29 |
but if package was removed because lack of maintainership it does not |
| 30 |
matter, does not it? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Main tree is not place for dead AND(not or, and!) not working packages. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 37 |
Desktop-effects project lead |
Archives