1 |
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:57:06 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
| > How exactly does this affect package maintainers, apart from the |
3 |
| > cosmetic problems of having an old ebuild lying around? As far as I |
4 |
| > can see, it doesn't affect the maintenance burden, |
5 |
| |
6 |
| Of course it does... Lots of people can't remove outdated broken cruft |
7 |
| because $ebuild still depends on something since $arch has been |
8 |
| slacking for months. Lots of people are forced to maintain outdated |
9 |
| junk in this way, it's not like it's just sitting there doing nothing. |
10 |
|
11 |
Uh, dude... If people are maintaining out of date packages, they're |
12 |
doing something wrong. Old packages, by and large, should *not* be |
13 |
modified. |
14 |
|
15 |
| So again, if some arch can't be bothered to answer keywording bugs for |
16 |
| months, no point in complaining that the maintainer finally gets |
17 |
| pissed off enough to just punt the last ebuild keyworded for that |
18 |
| arch. |
19 |
|
20 |
Simply leaving those ebuilds alone takes no effort. |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
24 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
25 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
26 |
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 |