| 1 |
Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> A few days ago i glanced over package.mask , and i was surprised |
| 5 |
> about how many non-existent ebuild/packages entries are there. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So, i wrote a script to try to get a list of those orphaned entries, |
| 8 |
> and it looks like there are more than 400 packages/ebuilds which are still |
| 9 |
> listed in p.m but that don't exist in the tree anymore. |
| 10 |
> (A bunch of them from the KDE herd btw) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> *Please* take a look at http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/old_package.mask , |
| 13 |
> for the list of these non-existent ebuilds/packages, in case you have |
| 14 |
> forgotten something |
| 15 |
> in there. I'd like if every person takes care of their own entries if |
| 16 |
> possible. If not, i *personally* could go slowly removing the entries, |
| 17 |
> along with other |
| 18 |
> people willing to help, or any other _better_ suggestion to deal with this? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I *of course* haven't checked all of the entry generated by the script |
| 21 |
> manually , |
| 22 |
> so there might probably exist packages which are indeed correct, so |
| 23 |
> please re-check |
| 24 |
> before doing something. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I also noticed (slight detail) that there are a couple of recent entries |
| 27 |
> at the bottom |
| 28 |
> of this file, isn't the policy to have new entries added at the top? , |
| 29 |
> is there any special |
| 30 |
> reason for this? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Ok, that's all for now! |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Looks like something that could be added to the "list of unstable |
| 37 |
ebuilds" deal that also gets sent here, simple to script... ;) |
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives