| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 2 |
> | Accumulating broken old vulnerable and unsupported junk in tree |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> There is no accumulation. It's already there. And if packages are that |
| 5 |
> bad, perhaps you should ask yourself why they have a stable keyword at |
| 6 |
> all. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Eh, sure there won't be any accumulation of broken junk _if_ the ebuild |
| 9 |
never gets a version bump. (Then it should probably be removed |
| 10 |
altogether after a reasonable period of time once it gets broken). |
| 11 |
That's not what are we talking about here. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Otherwise, apparently the junk accumulates there. As an example - it's |
| 14 |
really wonderful to have 3 KDE slots plus multiple versions for each in |
| 15 |
the tree just because some arch team hasn't keyworded/stabilized |
| 16 |
anything newer for ages. Makes everything faster and all... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> | for the sole sake of arches that noone cares about enough to keyword |
| 19 |
> | something newer for months |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If you're taking that argument, one could just as easily claim that the |
| 22 |
> packages should be removed entirely since the arch teams don't care |
| 23 |
> enough to keyword them. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
See above, perhaps? And, we have some ebuilds without any keywords in |
| 26 |
the tree? If we do, then yes, they should be removed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Jakub Moc |
| 33 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 34 |
GPG signature: |
| 35 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 36 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives