Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Bryan Østergaard" <kloeri@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Treecleaner meeting summary
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:38:31
Message-Id: 20061217203543.GK21525@woodpecker.gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Treecleaner meeting summary by Elfyn McBratney
1 On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:22:13PM +0000, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
2 > Ciao,
3 >
4 > The outcome of the meeting is, basically, that we need to be a lot more
5 > careful/cautious when it comes to punting packages from the tree. For
6 > example, in cases where packages work but the ebuilds themselves do not,
7 > we should fixing those up where possible. Same goes for packages that
8 > are widely used e.g., XMMS (that one just came into my head, honest!).
9 >
10 > In addition to this, we'll also be following a process similar to that
11 > used by the security team: file a bug (assigned to maintainer-needed
12 > with treecleaners on the CC) detailing why exactly package foo should be
13 > masked/removed; X yes votes from treecleaner members will result in the
14 > package getting package.mask-ed and/or removed from the tree.
15 >
16 Thanks, I believe many users (and devs) will be happy to see improved
17 policies regarding package removals. I'm also personally very much
18 looking forward to an official Proxy Maintainers project -proxy
19 maintaining is one of the things I've been advertising in my own small
20 way for a long time now and I've been very happy working with several
21 proxy maintainers the last couple of years.
22
23 Finally, I hope this can lead to a good discussion about future policies
24 and not concentrate on past package removals and possible mistakes in
25 that regard. We want to look forward and improve the processes.
26
27 Thanks for the summary and good luck on both projects.
28
29 Regards,
30 Bryan Østergaard
31 --
32 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Proxy maintainers Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>