1 |
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:10:07 -0500 james wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
4 |
> >> Hi everyone, |
5 |
> >> |
6 |
> >> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin |
7 |
> >> forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them. I didn't get any |
8 |
> >> feedback so as of tomorrow I'll be masking the following for removal in |
9 |
> >> 30 days. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Any reason for mask and removal? Are these packages broken? |
12 |
> > Just drop them to maintainer-needed. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Best regards, |
15 |
> > Andrew Savchenko |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Perhaps we should start posting these orphaned-package announcements to |
19 |
> gentoo-user, so folks interested in learning about ebuilds can ponder |
20 |
> proxy-maintenance of a few packages as an opportunity? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Surely there is a wider audience that will see some packages they like |
24 |
> are going away because there are not enough maintainers, and thus |
25 |
> respond by 'stepping up' to maintain a few packages? |
26 |
|
27 |
The idea sounds reasonable, but it doesn't answer why we have a |
28 |
highly alarming tendency of purging working packages from the tree |
29 |
just because they have no maintainer. |
30 |
|
31 |
Best regards, |
32 |
Andrew Savchenko |