| 1 |
On Mon, 7 May 2018 13:38:47 -0700 |
| 2 |
Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> If there's a way to have repoman alert developers to deprecated |
| 6 |
> dependencies in the same way we handle deprecated eclasses, I'd like |
| 7 |
> to know about it. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Currently there is not. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Thinking out loud... It would mean parsing package.mask to generate |
| 14 |
the list filtering out those with "masked for removal", from other |
| 15 |
general mask reasons, but even that is not consistent. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
from another email in today's batch... (not to pick on this one, was |
| 18 |
just a lucky coincidence) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
eg: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: old, ruby23-only, slots of various |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
ruby packages # Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o> (7 May 2018) |
| 25 |
# Old slots that are ruby23-only and no longer maintained |
| 26 |
# upstream, and that do not have packages depend on them. |
| 27 |
# Migrate to newer slot of the same package. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Perhaps we would need to add a separate last-rites.mask list that |
| 30 |
the package manager merges internally as part of the .mask stack. That |
| 31 |
would make just one file to load without a need for filtering. A |
| 32 |
separate list might also be beneficial for the undertakers and any |
| 33 |
tooling for its automation. (I am not familiar with any of that tooling) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I would then suggest the dependency depth check to default to one (or |
| 36 |
two) so as to not slow things down drastically. Perhaps a Q/A check |
| 37 |
report to scan the whole tree on a weekly basis. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
But that would also require PMS to be updated for the new file, which |
| 40 |
means a council vote... |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives