1 |
On Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:09:48 Petteri Räty wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tuesday 27 October 2009 02:07:02 Ryan Hill wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:48:39 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote: |
5 |
> >>> James Cloos wrote: |
6 |
> >>>> When you first psoted this list I noticed some (or several?) live |
7 |
> >>>> ebuilds. Git-9999 is the one I remember. |
8 |
> >>>> |
9 |
> >>>> Those should not get nuked during global cleanups, as they are likely |
10 |
> >>>> to be in active use notwithstanding their keywording or masking. |
11 |
> >>> |
12 |
> >>> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to EAPI 2. |
13 |
> >>> If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we want to keep live |
14 |
> >>> ebuilds for them around? |
15 |
> >> |
16 |
> >> Your stated goal was to remove unused ebuilds, which live ebuilds are |
17 |
> >> not, regardless of the status of the maintainer. And I'm pretty sure |
18 |
> >> git has an active maintainer. :P |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > indeed. you really should file bugs for these instead of deleting |
21 |
> > ebuilds on people who missed a thread on gentoo-dev. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> All developers are required to follow gentoo-dev-announce. If they don't |
24 |
> follow that, it can't be expected for them to follow bugzilla either. |
25 |
|
26 |
that's a poor excuse. file bugs instead of tromping on other people's |
27 |
packages since you clearly have a list of ebuilds you shouldnt be removing and |
28 |
you dont intend to fix. i doubt Ryan's example of git-9999 is the only one. |
29 |
-mike |