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 |