| 1 |
Why it's so hard not to delete ebuilds from the tree? Also it was |
| 2 |
already discussed that if maintainer wishes he/she could drop some |
| 3 |
keywords from old ebuild, e.g. if you have more recent version of |
| 4 |
package stabilized on arch, just drop arch keyword from the old ebuild. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
В Пнд, 10/11/2008 в 20:21 -0500, Richard Freeman пишет: |
| 7 |
> I guess the question is whether package maintainers should be forced |
| 8 |
> to maintain packages that are outdated by a significant period of |
| 9 |
> time. Suppose something breaks a package that is 3 versions behind |
| 10 |
> stable on all archs but one (where it is the current stable). Should |
| 11 |
> the package maintainer be required to fix it, rather than just delete |
| 12 |
> it? I suspect that the maintainer would be more likely to just leave |
| 13 |
> it broken, which doesn't exactly leave things better-off for the end |
| 14 |
> users. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The package maintainer just should add depend on stabilization bug and |
| 17 |
leave resolution of the issue to arch team. Package maintainer already |
| 18 |
fixed things on his end so he has nothing to do... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Peter. |
Archives