| 1 |
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:25:02 +0000 |
| 2 |
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2016.01.21 16:53, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> |
| 7 |
> > wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 10 |
> > > > Hash: SHA256 |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within |
| 13 |
> > them, I |
| 14 |
> > > > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition |
| 15 |
> > > > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I |
| 16 |
> > was |
| 17 |
> > > > wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible |
| 18 |
> > > > solutions. |
| 19 |
> > > > |
| 20 |
> > > > There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at |
| 21 |
> > this |
| 22 |
> > > > time, look like they will not be claimed by developers. This will |
| 23 |
> > > > likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages |
| 24 |
> > (and |
| 25 |
> > > > subsequent package rot). This isn't to say that some of these |
| 26 |
> > > > packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, |
| 27 |
> > but |
| 28 |
> > > > now, they will explicitly be there. |
| 29 |
> > > > |
| 30 |
> > > |
| 31 |
> > > Speaking as the dude who founded the treecleaners project...all |
| 32 |
> > things die. |
| 33 |
> > > Even software. While some may yearn for a software archive (nee, |
| 34 |
> > > graveyard!), I put forth that the gentoo-x86 tree is not such a |
| 35 |
> > thing. Do |
| 36 |
> > > not weep for the unmaintained packages that will be cleaned![1] |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > I couldn't have said this better myself. The gentoo-x86 tree is not a |
| 39 |
> > software archival service. If packages are unmaintained, that is what |
| 40 |
> > the treecleaners project is for is to boot those packages out of the |
| 41 |
> > tree. |
| 42 |
> > |
| 43 |
> > I would like to see a possible timelimit set on how long packages can |
| 44 |
> > stay in maintainer-needed; once a package goes there, if we can't find |
| 45 |
> > someone to maintain it, we should consider booting it after that time |
| 46 |
> > limit passes. |
| 47 |
> > |
| 48 |
> > If someone wants to run the graveyard overlay and keep those old |
| 49 |
> > packages around more power to them, but they definitely do not |
| 50 |
> > belong in the main tree if they are unmaintained for an extended |
| 51 |
> > period |
| 52 |
> > of time. |
| 53 |
> > |
| 54 |
> > William |
| 55 |
> > |
| 56 |
> > |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> There is no point in removing unmaintained but perfectly functional software from the tree. |
| 59 |
> It needs to be both unmaintained and broken. Broken being evidenced by at least one open bug. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
That's nonsense. In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what should be |
| 62 |
removed. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply |
| 65 |
doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you forcing |
| 66 |
me to waste a time reporting a bug to no maintainer who could fix it? |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Because to me, the lack of any open bugs is a clear evidence that |
| 69 |
the package is not only unmaintained, but also unused. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
Best regards, |
| 74 |
Michał Górny |
| 75 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives