| 1 |
El sáb, 29-10-2016 a las 16:25 -0400, NP-Hardass escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 10/29/2016 02:30 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > On 10/29/2016 07:59 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > On 10/08/2016 07:57 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > # Fails to build (#515294), nothing needs it, relies on |
| 9 |
> > > > obsolete |
| 10 |
> > > > capi4kutils. |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > For all the packages being removed due to capi4kutils, how many |
| 14 |
> > > were |
| 15 |
> > > investigated with net-libs/libcapi? For WINE, we transitioned to |
| 16 |
> > > using |
| 17 |
> > > libcapi instead of capi4kutils, and I don't see why some of those |
| 18 |
> > > couldn't as well, provided the capi4kutils is the only reason why |
| 19 |
> > > those |
| 20 |
> > > are being treecleaned. |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Someone needs to take over responsibility for the packages |
| 24 |
> > (maintainership) and fixing the issues then. If not, they should be |
| 25 |
> > removed. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I'm only talking about the packages that have no other issues and are |
| 29 |
> only being treecleaned because of this dependency. Honestly, I don't |
| 30 |
> care about any of those packages. I only brought this up because |
| 31 |
> sometimes it is better to only treeclean when appropriate, and if |
| 32 |
> switching from one dep to another (which should have been virtual'd) |
| 33 |
> resolves it, it might not still meet the conditions for tree |
| 34 |
> cleaning. |
| 35 |
> We don't normally tree clean packages simply because they are old or |
| 36 |
> don't have a maintainer. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> So, I will reiterate my one and only point, for those that are only |
| 39 |
> being removed due to the removal of capi4kutils, how many are still |
| 40 |
> worthy of being treecleaned after swapping out that dep? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> If you feel that is too high a maintenance burden, fine, remove them |
| 43 |
> all. I'm merely proposing it be looked at since otherwise we are |
| 44 |
> potentially removing packages that don't have to or shouldn't be |
| 45 |
> removed. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
For that concrete case you can see in their relevant bug reports that |
| 49 |
most of them are completely dead for ages and were removed long time |
| 50 |
ago in all the other distributions (that went out of using capi4kutils |
| 51 |
also many time ago) |
Archives