Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Vaeth <vaeth@××××××××××××××××××××××××.de>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Removals reply
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:18:27
1 (My last public mail on the topic, I promise).
3 Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
4 > If you want an automatic archive for dropped packages, MAKE ONE!
6 You can study the problem with single-person projects at the example
7 of the (previous) Gentoo Wiki.
8 Without having the files on (at least some) mirrors it makes no sense.
10 (Also, I am already contributing more than I can afford with eix).
12 Alec Warner wrote:
13 > Gentoo has been running for over 10 years without it
15 This is why nobody yet expected to re-obtain tarballs for
16 packages older than 10 years. Also the desire for still slightly
17 younger tarballs is currently low due to the age of Gentoo.
19 But slowly the situation starts to change, and in a few years,
20 it will look rather differently.
22 > I don't believe for a second that it is the role of Gentoo to have
23 > packaged 'any software the user might have ever needed, or will ever
24 > need.'
26 Not packaged, but if it was once packaged, it could still be provided
27 (in an unmaintained form).
29 > It has nothing to do with disk space.
31 It is. (Only). See below.
33 > Why do you want to put pressure on *me* to maintain software I do not
34 > want to maintain?
36 Not at all. I was never suggesting that anyone should maintain it.
37 I am just suggesting to *not* remove things permanently but just to
38 mark them unmaintained instead (e.g. by a corresponding mask comment).
40 > I think what you have failed to do is find someone in the developer
41 > community who is really eager to implement your idea.
43 There is not much to implement - just to not remove.
45 If you really think that it is a *technical* problem if unmaintained
46 masked abuilds are in the tree (e.g. to shorten the disk space on
47 the user's disk, to shorten eix's output, or just to avoid that
48 portage might get confused some day with ancient EAPI's),
49 one could indeed find a small alternative "implementation":
51 E.g. remove the ebuilds as now (since they are in CVS/git anyway),
52 but to save the tarballs just collect them in some package
53 "app-portage/obsolete" (or other name) which installs nothing
54 but just contains all removed tarballs in its SRC_URI so that
55 they do not vanish from the mirrors.
57 There is really nothing to implement. It is only a question
58 whether it is *wanted*.
60 > Or put pressure on *Gentoo* to mirror someones
61 > source code or binaries, for software Gentoo are no longer interested
62 > in distributing?
64 So, essentially, it *is* an issue of disk (mirror) space.
66 Regards
67 Martin