| 1 |
(My last public mail on the topic, I promise). |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 4 |
> If you want an automatic archive for dropped packages, MAKE ONE! |
| 5 |
|
| 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. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
(Also, I am already contributing more than I can afford with eix). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Alec Warner wrote: |
| 13 |
> Gentoo has been running for over 10 years without it |
| 14 |
|
| 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. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
But slowly the situation starts to change, and in a few years, |
| 20 |
it will look rather differently. |
| 21 |
|
| 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.' |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Not packaged, but if it was once packaged, it could still be provided |
| 27 |
(in an unmaintained form). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> It has nothing to do with disk space. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It is. (Only). See below. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Why do you want to put pressure on *me* to maintain software I do not |
| 34 |
> want to maintain? |
| 35 |
|
| 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). |
| 39 |
|
| 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. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
There is not much to implement - just to not remove. |
| 44 |
|
| 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": |
| 50 |
|
| 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. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
There is really nothing to implement. It is only a question |
| 58 |
whether it is *wanted*. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> Or put pressure on *Gentoo* to mirror someones |
| 61 |
> source code or binaries, for software Gentoo are no longer interested |
| 62 |
> in distributing? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
So, essentially, it *is* an issue of disk (mirror) space. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Regards |
| 67 |
Martin |
Archives