| 1 |
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > +################################################################ |
| 5 |
> > > #### |
| 6 |
> > > +# |
| 7 |
> > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated |
| 8 |
> > > (but |
| 9 |
> > > not |
| 10 |
> > > +# masked yet). It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other |
| 11 |
> > > +# packages depend on them. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > repoman would be more useful for this |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining it. I've |
| 18 |
> lost interest in contributing to the project after the last pointless |
| 19 |
> refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't |
| 20 |
> seem |
| 21 |
> that anyone else has. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks |
| 24 |
> in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I don't |
| 25 |
> really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead |
| 26 |
> repoman. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
it's not about who's maintaining what here... |
| 30 |
just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
unless i missed something, repoman is still the standard for pre-commit |
| 34 |
checks and raising everyone's attention on potential |
| 35 |
improvements/issues; pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for |
| 36 |
producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different problem |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa- |
| 39 |
reports like for eapis too |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
as for your current views on repoman vs pkgcheck, i have nothing |
| 43 |
against stopping using repoman and switching to pkgcheck, but AFAIK |
| 44 |
this has yet to happen at a policy level |
Archives