| 1 |
I don't think that officially supported ebuilds that are officially |
| 2 |
unsupported is a good idea. If they were officially supported then |
| 3 |
they would in effect never be removed, just simply placed somewhere |
| 4 |
else. It seems to me that this should be a third party project if |
| 5 |
anything. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On 12/19/06, Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 8 |
> antarus posted recently to the user reps forum asking for feedback on how to |
| 9 |
> solve user experience glitches like the recent xmms removal. (I do *not* |
| 10 |
> want to discuss that thanks ;) The thread is at: |
| 11 |
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-516142.html |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> richfish came up with the simplest solution to the problem of old ebuilds: |
| 14 |
> > The best possible case I can think of for most of these ebuilds is to push |
| 15 |
> > them upstream assuming upstream is alive and willing to maintain them |
| 16 |
> > (possibly with some user-supplied patches now and then). Users would then |
| 17 |
> > be responsible for installing the ebuilds to their local overlays, and |
| 18 |
> > filing bugs with upstream if something doesn't work. In fact, my strong |
| 19 |
> > preference in this is to just tell users to use their local overlay |
| 20 |
> > regardless of whether upstream accepts ownership of the ebuilds. I would |
| 21 |
> > even suggest we encourage this by providing a dedicated forum and IRC |
| 22 |
> > channel for users to help each other with their 'private' ebuilds. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> This requires a new IRC channel and forum (one suggestion was `sunset' 8) so |
| 25 |
> I thought I'd post in here to see what everyone thought. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives