| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Thank you very much for your experience and information sharing. I |
| 4 |
learnt very much with your answers. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
--- |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The goal of my suggestions was related to ebuilds that become unattended |
| 9 |
more than one year or being left behind even further. Anyway the right |
| 10 |
timescale depends on each project and so each team could define the |
| 11 |
right limit. This kind of policies would allow to take care of forgotten |
| 12 |
or neglected ebuilds in portage. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
But this policy implementation only deserves attention when updating new |
| 15 |
profile releases. The policy action could just place a portage warning |
| 16 |
with hard mask of those packages that will be removed in next profile |
| 17 |
release. Because I like very much the idea of not loosing ebuilds (we |
| 18 |
wants it!... we needs it must!... my precious), I suggested that in this |
| 19 |
case could be relevant to have another profile stage such as ceased or |
| 20 |
unattended. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So with this kind of action would allow to reduce work, keeping the |
| 23 |
focus of maintenance where it is most needed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
--- |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I have to leave a very big thanks to all dedication and time that all |
| 28 |
Gentoo developers, maintainers, teams, ... spent with this noble cause. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
On 2020-04-11 16:53, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 33 |
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 18:21:00 +0200 |
| 34 |
> Jonas Stein <jstein@g.o> wrote: |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>>> I would like to leave a suggestion for Gentoo portage ebuild review. |
| 37 |
>>> Since there are some ebuilds in portage that become outdated for more |
| 38 |
>>> than one year when there are new versions available, maybe could be |
| 39 |
>>> possible to add a new step in Gentoo QA service to generate an alarm |
| 40 |
>>> (send email to project and CI leaders) to request a human review. |
| 41 |
>> This service does already exist. Everybody can use repology [1], euscan |
| 42 |
>> [2] and others. |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> Bumping a package needs time - especially for testing. I work a lot on |
| 45 |
>> our bug tracker and my impression is that automatic bugs for a bump |
| 46 |
>> request are contra productive. We already have many important, but easy |
| 47 |
>> to fix open bugs. |
| 48 |
>> Automatic tickets for packages will flood bugzilla with tickets for |
| 49 |
>> unused packages and bind additional manpower. |
| 50 |
> Totally agree. I have already used euscan, and nowadays repology, and |
| 51 |
> they're very useful for keeping on top of the stuff I directly |
| 52 |
> maintain. I can also use them for the wider games team but there's a |
| 53 |
> mountain of work to do there and that's not even counting the constant |
| 54 |
> flood of largely automated bug reports we already get every day. I just |
| 55 |
> do what I can. |
| 56 |
> |
Archives