| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:09 AM Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Samstag, 1. August 2020 12:15:18 CEST Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Just based on what is already happening, it seems like most devs don't |
| 5 |
> > really care what versions of python are supported by their packages, |
| 6 |
> > let alone the dependencies of their packages. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
So, to start, I'll apologize as my original reply was worded a bit strongly. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm happy to hear that bugs were filed this time. Obviously a lot of |
| 11 |
fairly active devs were taken unaware by a bunch of package masks only |
| 12 |
a few days ago, so that isn't being done consistently, but if we're |
| 13 |
doing it going forward that is great. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> That's the definition of an unmaintained package to me. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I didn't say they were ignoring bugs. I said they didn't care about |
| 19 |
python. It is ok not to care about python, or C, or glibc, or |
| 20 |
whatever. They're a means to an end for most devs. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Some devs like to focus on a tool, and some devs focus on the software |
| 23 |
that uses those tools. There is nothing wrong with either. The key |
| 24 |
is communication, which didn't happen enough (IMO) the last time |
| 25 |
around. Communication is what lets two people who have different |
| 26 |
interests pool their resources. Yes, some will ignore |
| 27 |
well-intentioned efforts to communicate, but most won't, so it is |
| 28 |
usually worth the effort. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> In case anyone still didn't know that list: |
| 31 |
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/36-to-37.txt |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So, if there are bugs filed then this list isn't all that important, |
| 34 |
since maintainers will find out via bugs. However, if you really want |
| 35 |
lists like this to be directly useful to maintainers then you really |
| 36 |
need to include maintainer names in them, because otherwise they're |
| 37 |
very difficult to grep. I doubt most devs know off the top of their |
| 38 |
head the list of packages they maintain. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Somebody will no doubt link (again) repology or whatever. Great, so |
| 41 |
now we have two tables and we're asking humans to do a join on them. |
| 42 |
Much better to just have the tools do this for us, and rather than |
| 43 |
asking every dev to do it independently it makes more sense for the |
| 44 |
first person that does it to just post the combined list. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
In any case, this is moot if bugs were filed. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Rich |
Archives