| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Alex Alexander <wired@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 19:45, Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed |
| 9 |
>>> developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to |
| 10 |
>>> maintain thousands of ebuilds. |
| 11 |
>> [...] |
| 12 |
>>> We need to support only the packages that we can *really* support and |
| 13 |
>>> lets hope that more people will join in when they see their packages |
| 14 |
>>> going away. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> I like the idea of shrinking portage, but here's a scenario I'd like to |
| 17 |
>> avoid: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> 1) package A is unmainted, but has a sophistacted ebuild that evolved |
| 20 |
>> over some time. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> 2) A has an open bug that nobody cares to fix, treecleaners come around |
| 23 |
>> and remove A. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> 3) New dev X joines Gentoo and cares for A and startes to rewrite the |
| 26 |
>> ebuild from scratch. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> Is there a way for X to easily query the portage history and dig up the |
| 29 |
>> ebuild that was there at some point. She could then use the old ebuild |
| 30 |
>> for their new version, but without efficient search she would probably |
| 31 |
>> start from scratch. Some packages are treecleaned in the state 'working |
| 32 |
>> but with a single bug (and nobody cares)', it would be good if that |
| 33 |
>> state is somehow retained after the removal. Then you can get a fully |
| 34 |
>> working package while fixing only one bug. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> Searching through mailing list archives with automatted removal mails |
| 37 |
>> would be my hack, what would be yours? |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> Cheers, |
| 40 |
>> Thomas |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> We could try removing all keywords and masking ebuilds that are |
| 43 |
> abandoned with bugs but upstream is still active, instead of removing |
| 44 |
> them completely. That way the ebuild will be there when/if someone |
| 45 |
> else decides to take care of the package and it will even show in |
| 46 |
> tools like eix. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> -- |
| 49 |
> Alex Alexander | wired |
| 50 |
> + Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 51 |
> ++ www.linuxized.com |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
+1 on this. It saves the ebuild for posterity AND prevents users |
| 56 |
hitting nasty bits. This seems to me to beg for a proper well-defined |
| 57 |
policy, in any case. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Matthew W. Summers |
| 61 |
Gentoo Foundation Inc. |
Archives