| 1 |
On Thursday 08 December 2005 20:23, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 08 December 2005 21:10, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > so the video herd policy is to remove packages until you're left with |
| 4 |
> > a small enough subset of packages you can handle ? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> No, it's to remove the packages that have problems, that requires |
| 7 |
> dependencies that are badly broken (transcode 0.6 is a pain to manage, does |
| 8 |
> not work with GCC4 and it's not easily fixable, and upstream moved to |
| 9 |
> transcode 1), that requires maintenance and nobody can give it, and that |
| 10 |
> might be replaced by other programs with way less troubles... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
To be fair, you can hardly count GCC4 as it's not even in our unstable tree |
| 13 |
yet (and yes, I know it will be soon). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ya know, dhcpcd was in the same state. Unmaintained, didn't compile with GCC4 |
| 16 |
and upstream was dead. Didn't hear any calls to remove it from the tree |
| 17 |
though as it was (and still is I suppose) the default dhcp client even though |
| 18 |
all the others are coded much better. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If you want to maintain that, no need for it to be removed... atm it's |
| 22 |
> going to be unmaintained in the tree, full of problems, and requires us to |
| 23 |
> not plan of dropping transcode 0.6. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I have no wish to maintain it, but if it compiles then there is no need to |
| 26 |
remove it. So it's unmaintained - so was openvpn and net-misc/dhcp for pretty |
| 27 |
much a year or so until I stepped up. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So if no-one steps up then let it sit in the tree if people are using it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Roy |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives