| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, |
| 5 |
> | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just |
| 6 |
> | institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a |
| 7 |
> | virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if |
| 8 |
> | necessary. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Much more sensible. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I've thought some about this. It would be acceptable to me for |
| 13 |
virtual/x11 to provide modular X deps, if we also instituted a repoman |
| 14 |
death upon any attempt to commit to a directory for which the best |
| 15 |
visible package is broken. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This will accomplish the goal of discovering completely unmaintained |
| 18 |
packages but will fail in the goal of discovering which packages nobody |
| 19 |
uses. They'll still continue to rot in the tree, unmaintained, unused |
| 20 |
and taking up space in everybody's syncs. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
How's that sound? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Donnie |
Archives