1 |
On 01/03/2017 06:31 AM, M. J. Everitt wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/01/17 11:05, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0700 (+07) |
4 |
>> grozin@g.o wrote: |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>>> On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Brian Evans wrote: |
7 |
>>>> IMO, this one should be given last-rites as upstream is dead and it |
8 |
>>>> heavily depends on wireless-tools and WEXT. |
9 |
>>> I use it on 2 notebooks. It works fine, and is (from my point of view) the |
10 |
>>> most convenient tool to control ethernet and wifi connections on a |
11 |
>>> notebook. Why lastrite it when it works? |
12 |
>> This is the Gentoo Way™. Having a working software is not a goal. |
13 |
>> Gentoo focuses on the best bleeding edge experience and therefore |
14 |
>> highly relies on software packages that are under active development |
15 |
>> and require active maintenance. The packages in early stages of |
16 |
>> development are especially interesting since they can supply users |
17 |
>> and developers with variety of interesting bugs and unpredictable |
18 |
>> issues. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
> From your response I infer the following, please discuss: |
21 |
> 1) "working software is not a goal" .. so we can have a tree full of |
22 |
> broken and/or unstable packages. What is the point of any QA/CI system |
23 |
> if this is applicable? |
24 |
> 2) "require active maintainance" .. by whom exactly? Where are the flood |
25 |
> of keen developers bringing their bleeding edge code (with their |
26 |
> ludicrous packaging requirements and language demands) to Gentoo? |
27 |
> 3) "interesting bugs and unpredictable isssue" .. WTF? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Michal .. are you (once again...) High .. or is your email (once again) |
30 |
> so soaked in sarcasm we can't tell any useful content from the complete |
31 |
> drivel ... |
32 |
> |
33 |
Maybe I'm weird but I thought it was funny... |
34 |
|
35 |
I'm in favor of keeping software around until it breaks. When there's a |
36 |
non-existent upstream and nobody's willing to take up the helm |
37 |
themselves, it's a clear indication that it's in danger of being |
38 |
treecleaned. In some cases that's good; some packages get left behind |
39 |
and never updated, CVEs get released, nobody cares about the package and |
40 |
it sits masked for a while. Those are the packages we should consider |
41 |
for treecleaning, not just "oh it's been 2 years since a release" or |
42 |
"upstream website troubles". |
43 |
|
44 |
On the latter count, does anyone attempt to reach upstream before |
45 |
suggesting we get rid of the package(s)? Is there not some forum we can |
46 |
use to reach users who may be interested in proxy-maintaining it? This |
47 |
discussion makes me wonder if we need (more) formal guidelines for |
48 |
treecleaning. I think we've got a few people who are eager to clean the |
49 |
tree -- and their goal is admirable -- but until we can get metrics on |
50 |
who's using what, it's hard to say how much damage removing a package |
51 |
will do for users. A thread on gentoo-user re: lastrites might not be a |
52 |
bad idea. |
53 |
|
54 |
Thanks for the laugh Michał. :) |
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
58 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
59 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |