| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 06.12.2019 kell 14:06, kirjutas Thomas |
| 2 |
Deutschmann: |
| 3 |
> Since when is it acceptable for anyone to remove packages (the |
| 4 |
> package.mask entry clearly says that this package is scheduled for |
| 5 |
> removal and suspecting that any *user* will step and contact p-m for |
| 6 |
> example is naive) without any need? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I assume the p.mask entry text wasn't optimal then. |
| 9 |
For this specific case, sabnzbd had been in maintainer-needed for 3 |
| 10 |
months already. Unfortunately no "package up for grabs" had been sent |
| 11 |
for this one when it was dropped to that (previous maintainer dropped |
| 12 |
maintenance himself). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I don't see anything wrong with the idea of p.masking it in case it |
| 15 |
could be causing problems for others (such as py2). Of course the |
| 16 |
p.mask entry could apparently have been better, it's sad that no |
| 17 |
"package up for grabs" happened back then months ago, and it's not nice |
| 18 |
it was all in a big lump of maintainer-needed packages, python@ |
| 19 |
packages and packages maintained by completely unaware maintainers with |
| 20 |
no notification period. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Mart |
Archives