1 |
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> So per https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462366#c4, the package |
3 |
> now has a new maintainer so it will not be removed. |
4 |
> See? This is what I call a good solution instead of going around and |
5 |
> constantly saying "Ohhh bad bad Gentoo removes awesome packages" |
6 |
|
7 |
Probably worth noting that the real problem for packages like these is |
8 |
a barely-existent upstream. If a package is really important to you |
9 |
it behooves you to try to support upstream however you can. |
10 |
|
11 |
I've yet to really dig into the issues with this package, but some of |
12 |
the Gentoo bugs refer to working implementations in other distros or |
13 |
upstream filed patches that apparently aren't in the repository yet. |
14 |
These are really upstream issues. |
15 |
|
16 |
So, while cuneiform has a lease on life in Gentoo, it is really just a |
17 |
matter of time before some big dependency change kills it for good if |
18 |
upstream doesn't pick up momentum. I don't mind maintaining an odd |
19 |
patch or two, but there is no way something like this is going to stay |
20 |
in the tree if it ends up becoming a blocker for some big toolchain |
21 |
upgrade (unless the fix is trivial). |
22 |
|
23 |
So, if you find this package really useful consider this whole thread |
24 |
as a warning. I don't personally use it, but I think that this |
25 |
package isn't quite at the point of no return and at least some appear |
26 |
to be passionate about it so I'm willing to buy them some time. If it |
27 |
does reach that point, then I'll put out a call for maintainers (proxy |
28 |
or otherwise) and put it down myself if there is no response to save |
29 |
treecleaners the duplicate effort. If you aren't interested in |
30 |
developing then offer donations to upstream, or do something to |
31 |
revitalize the project. It isn't a lost cause - YET. |
32 |
|
33 |
On a side note, if you use this instead of tesseract I'd be interested |
34 |
in hearing about why (off list). In my very limited tests tesseract |
35 |
seems to perform better. The cuneiform community (what little there |
36 |
is) would do well to understand their niche and exploit it, or |
37 |
influence healthier projects to address their needs. |
38 |
|
39 |
Markos - I'm not sure what can be done to try to better flush out user |
40 |
interest in taking care of packages that are on the verge of death. |
41 |
I'd suggest announcing pending removals before masking them, but I |
42 |
suspect that more often than not the only reason we get replies on |
43 |
-dev is that users notice the masks. Maybe the package masks could |
44 |
have a webpage explaining how users can help rescue packages |
45 |
constructively, and include a link to it in mask notices. Since I've |
46 |
tended to be an advocate for not masking as quickly I might go ahead |
47 |
and toss something together. |
48 |
|
49 |
Rich |