| 1 |
On 01/03/2017 09:10 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/03/2017 03:57 PM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> For security's sake, even mature software needs, at minimum, routine auditing. |
| 4 |
>> Unless someone's doing that work, the package should be considered for |
| 5 |
>> removal. (Call that reason # π, in honor of TeX.) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> A distinction here likely needs to be made between actively maintained |
| 8 |
> upstream and actively Gentoo maintained as well. Actively maintained |
| 9 |
> upstream might not be an issue for a feature complete package, but if it |
| 10 |
> lacks a Gentoo-maintainer in addition it is worrying. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Agreed, the main thing a package needs is a responsive packager. If the |
| 14 |
packager finds an issue with a package that they can't fix and upstream |
| 15 |
is non-responsive then the packager is probably responsible for |
| 16 |
tree-cleaning themselves. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives