Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò" <flameeyes@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] metadata revised - removal of packages
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:27:24
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] metadata revised - removal of packages by Mike Frysinger
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.
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.
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.
19 --
20 Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
21 Gentoo Developer -
22 (Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] metadata revised - removal of packages Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>