| 1 |
Nirbheek Chauhan schrieb: |
| 2 |
>>> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for |
| 3 |
>>> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that |
| 4 |
>>> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't |
| 5 |
>>> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>> Uhm no. The fact that nobody takes care of it doesn't necessarily mean |
| 9 |
>> that the package is broken and that it should be removed |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I never said that such packages were broken. I'm saying that if no one |
| 13 |
> wants to maintain them, they probably aren't needed by anyone, and we |
| 14 |
> should clean such cruft from the tree. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If they *are* needed by someone, then those folks should come forward |
| 17 |
> to maintain it. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The only such package I would like to see go is net-misc/mDNSResponder. |
| 21 |
And I am not convinced that having a maintainer listed in metadata.xml |
| 22 |
makes the package automatically non-cruft, or that orphaned packages are |
| 23 |
not at all cared about. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives