| 1 |
On Friday 09 September 2005 14:46, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> and then what ? if you're proposing removal of packages due solely to no |
| 3 |
> maintainer, then we're going to have to slap you around. dont remove |
| 4 |
> packages for that reason alone. |
| 5 |
Exactly the point. And I follow this request. If that was the case, publib and |
| 6 |
libiconv would have been removed from the tree a lot of time ago, while they |
| 7 |
are now maintained by BSD herd and by me, as they are useful for portability. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Unfortunately, seems like Ciaran thinks that removing them is the only way to |
| 10 |
go, also if they can be perfect and just be unmaintained, because ebuilds |
| 11 |
risk to not pass future repoman tests and needs to be qa-checked from time to |
| 12 |
time, adding more work. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Well that's why we have a QA team, isn't it? For most of the changes in |
| 15 |
repoman check is possible to run a whole-tree check and then who propose the |
| 16 |
change can take care of fixing the unmaintained parts, like I did for |
| 17 |
enewuser/cp-a/chown root:root bugs. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò |
| 21 |
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ |
| 22 |
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM) |
Archives