| 1 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:09:09 +0530 |
| 2 |
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> >> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for |
| 8 |
> >> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that |
| 9 |
> >> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't |
| 10 |
> >> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> > Uhm no. The fact that nobody takes care of it doesn't necessarily mean |
| 14 |
> > that the package is broken and that it should be removed |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I never said that such packages were broken. I'm saying that if no one |
| 18 |
> wants to maintain them, they probably aren't needed by anyone, and we |
| 19 |
> should clean such cruft from the tree. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is just wrong. If a package is working then it's easy to overlook the |
| 22 |
fact it has no maintainer. Nor does it need one. When it breaks is when |
| 23 |
people notice and either fix it or trash it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> If they *are* needed by someone, then those folks should come forward |
| 26 |
> to maintain it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Good luck with that. :) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense |
| 33 |
toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime |
| 34 |
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives