1 |
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:32:25 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
"Diego Petteno (flameeyes)" <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> flameeyes 12/10/31 16:32:25 |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Modified: boost-1.46.1-r1.ebuild metadata.xml |
7 |
> boost-1.49.0-r1.ebuild ChangeLog |
8 |
> Added: boost-1.51.0-r1.ebuild |
9 |
> Removed: boost-1.47.0.ebuild boost-1.35.0-r2.ebuild |
10 |
> boost-1.47.0-r1.ebuild boost-1.39.0.ebuild |
11 |
> boost-1.50.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0-r1.ebuild |
12 |
> boost-1.51.0.ebuild boost-1.37.0-r1.ebuild |
13 |
> boost-1.42.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.50.0.ebuild |
14 |
> boost-1.48.0-r2.ebuild boost-1.42.0.ebuild |
15 |
> boost-1.35.0-r5.ebuild boost-1.41.0-r3.ebuild |
16 |
> boost-1.45.0.ebuild |
17 |
> Log: |
18 |
> Unslotting. This removes a bunch of older packages that will not build on modern systems, keeps only three versions (stable, mostly-stable and masked). The new 1.51.0-r1 is designed so that it does not have to do any eselect or eselect-like trickery for the symlinks, also drops the tests (which are not working as expected anyway). |
19 |
> |
20 |
> (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha141/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest commit with key 1CD13C8AD4301342) |
21 |
|
22 |
What is this policy of performing widespread destructive changes while: |
23 |
|
24 |
a) you haven't pinged any of the maintainers of the package nor waited |
25 |
for their reply, |
26 |
|
27 |
b) you have ignored output from one of the maintainers of the package, |
28 |
|
29 |
c) you have committed changes *1 day* after submitting RFC to the ml, |
30 |
effectively ignoring output of people who do not read the ml daily, |
31 |
|
32 |
d) you have dropped maintainers from the package without asking, |
33 |
|
34 |
e) you haven't given our users or overlays any ability of testing them, |
35 |
|
36 |
f) you have introduced destructive changes to stable systems, |
37 |
|
38 |
g) and after all, you aren't even maintainer of this package nor member |
39 |
of the cpp herd. |
40 |
|
41 |
In other words, you have thrown a big, destructive change to live, |
42 |
stable systems without prior testing (and don't say you were able to |
43 |
test it thoroughly in one day's time) and you have left them for other |
44 |
people to maintain and fix. |
45 |
|
46 |
I am really getting tired of those 'senior developers' who believe that |
47 |
Gentoo is their private playground where they can do whatever comes |
48 |
into their mind and ignore package maintainers. |
49 |
|
50 |
-- |
51 |
Best regards, |
52 |
Michał Górny |