Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 13:06:27
Message-Id: 33a433c0-b547-7be6-f61a-1cf29b92328a@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade by Mart Raudsepp
1 Hi,
2
3 On 2019-12-06 09:11, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
4 > I don't think anyone can have a valid problem with package.mask of some
5 > of the things mentioned (sabnzbd, abcde, etc), because they were indeed
6 > maintainer-needed or sound@ (which David is part of, and is known
7 > crickets territory) or whatnot.
8
9 I agree with your mail in general but I don't understand this part:
10
11 Since when is it acceptable for anyone to remove packages (the
12 package.mask entry clearly says that this package is scheduled for
13 removal and suspecting that any *user* will step and contact p-m for
14 example is naive) without any need?
15
16 Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will
17 start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked
18 closely on any other package from that list) there isn't anything
19 blocking and it's a working piece of software. The only thing which
20 stands out is: It's a Py2-only package.
21
22 I am also curious about the maintainer-needed aspect: I understand that
23 Python project doesn't *want* and is also *unable* to maintain all
24 packages dumped to their project just because like everything in Gentoo,
25 the project is understaffed for the amount of work. But what's the
26 solution here? The message everyone saying this is acceptable sends out
27 can be summarized as: In future, when you see a package which you are
28 just using will lose its maintainer, take it before anyone decides 'I
29 have not *any* reason and there is no need but I'll remove it just
30 because I can'. Face it, no single maintainer can keep up with
31 maintaining 30+ packages in good quality. So there's a high chance that
32 package will rot the same way like they are already rotting in former
33 herds (projects).
34
35 Therefore I appreciate packages *without* set maintainer. Because these
36 packages are sending an important signal: Because they are
37 maintainer-needed, it's OK for anyone to touch them. Assuming we still
38 have the rule "If you touch it and it will break, you have to fix it"
39 that's at least something which *can* work because we still have no
40 system to declare "Yes, I am the maintainer of this package but I am
41 fine with you touching it".
42
43
44 --
45 Regards,
46 Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
47 C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>