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 |