Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] package graveyard
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:46:54
Message-Id: 20110817164504.GH10084@denkmatte
1 Hi,
3 I'm forking from a thread on gentoo-project:
5 On 17:26 Wed 17 Aug 2011, Markos Chandras wrote:
6 > Personally, I want to shrink portage. There is no way for 250 listed
7 > developers ( I would be glad if 100 of us were really active ) to
8 > maintain thousands of ebuilds.
9 [...]
10 > We need to support only the packages that we can *really* support and
11 > lets hope that more people will join in when they see their packages
12 > going away.
14 I like the idea of shrinking portage, but here's a scenario I'd like to
15 avoid:
17 1) package A is unmainted, but has a sophistacted ebuild that evolved
18 over some time.
20 2) A has an open bug that nobody cares to fix, treecleaners come around
21 and remove A.
23 3) New dev X joines Gentoo and cares for A and startes to rewrite the
24 ebuild from scratch.
26 Is there a way for X to easily query the portage history and dig up the
27 ebuild that was there at some point. She could then use the old ebuild
28 for their new version, but without efficient search she would probably
29 start from scratch. Some packages are treecleaned in the state 'working
30 but with a single bug (and nobody cares)', it would be good if that
31 state is somehow retained after the removal. Then you can get a fully
32 working package while fixing only one bug.
34 Searching through mailing list archives with automatted removal mails
35 would be my hack, what would be yours?
37 Cheers,
38 Thomas
41 --
42 Thomas Kahle


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] package graveyard Alex Alexander <wired@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package graveyard Cyprien Nicolas <c.nicolas@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] package graveyard Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net>