Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-text/cuneiform
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:48:41
Message-Id: CAGfcS_mZOdF-NQQbTvCg-KZg195WtEd5pw3U5Y75Gdtafu4_ug@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-text/cuneiform by Peter Stuge
1 On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
2 > You don't seem to recognize the quite significant psychological
3 > impact of you having already made the decision, compared to, say,
4 > having an actually inclusive package removal process.
5
6 I was going to post something along these lines, but I'm struggling to
7 come up with something that would actually be a better system in
8 practice.
9
10 The notice in the mask appears the next time you run emerge, which is
11 about as good as it gets in terms of making users aware. Markos is
12 open to including a URL in this annoucement which offers advice to
13 those affected. That might take some of the edge off.
14
15 I'm not sure I see a lot of alternatives. We could announce them on
16 -dev, but I don't know that it would cause many to show up. It might
17 be worth doing if it saves the treecleaners churn in the event that
18 somebody does step up (no need to touch portage only to have somebody
19 else revert the changes).
20
21 If somebody has ideas on better ways to communicate pending removals
22 speak up, but do keep in mind that it won't do any good if nobody
23 notices them until the mask comes.
24
25 Rich