| 1 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 9:14:54 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> The nice thing about ::graveyard or similar is that its a clear demarcation |
| 4 |
> between maintained (in tree) and unmaintained (graveyard.) It also means |
| 5 |
> that people doing actual maintenance work can basically ignore the |
| 6 |
> graveyard as a matter of policy. The ebuilds are archived there (for users) |
| 7 |
> but since they are unmaintained they may not work correctly. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This is what the Java team used to do. There was a java-graveyard-overlay. I |
| 10 |
do not believe any package ever moved there came back into the tree. It did |
| 11 |
result in a pretty messed up overlay, but makes it a user problem. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
At the same time, something could always be restored from VC. Not like removal |
| 14 |
is removing all history and traces. Thus not sure such overlay is really even |
| 15 |
beneficial. Using it could cause lots of problems if they just care about 1 |
| 16 |
package or a few. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives