| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> In fact, they did remove ebuilds from the tree in the past for this |
| 5 |
>> reason [1]. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Given that this was a live ebuild that failed to compile [2] and was |
| 8 |
> dumped onto the games team few weeks after it was committed to the |
| 9 |
> tree [3], I can even understand their reaction, in this particular |
| 10 |
> case. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm talking about the removal of 1.0 3 weeks ago, not the removal of |
| 13 |
the live ebuild 2 years ago. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I don't know if the new maintainer was aware that the package had |
| 16 |
previously been removed, but I'm not sure that it really matters. As |
| 17 |
long as the maintainer actually intended to maintain it I think that |
| 18 |
matters more. If the package had security issues/etc that would be a |
| 19 |
different matter. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The 1.0 package was not a live ebuild, either. Removing packages that |
| 22 |
are live ebuilds that have no maintainer and a dying upstream is a bit |
| 23 |
different from removing packages that are not live ebuilds that do |
| 24 |
have a maintainer, even if upstream isn't necessarily better off. In |
| 25 |
any case, the maintainer certainly should have been consulted. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'd encourage anybody re-introducing a package to also try to talk to |
| 28 |
those involved with removing it, but it might not be obvious if an |
| 29 |
obscure package had been removed two years in the past. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Uh, and what is up with games-strategy/openxcom and |
| 32 |
games-engines/openxcom? Was the re-introduction a dup? If so, then |
| 33 |
removal of it makes sense, though for that reason, and not simply |
| 34 |
because it was added without talking to the games herd... |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Rich |
Archives