Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:46:09
Message-Id: 200910270946.12243.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Unused ebuild built_with_use cleanup by "Petteri Räty"
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies