Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:27:41
Message-Id: 454786A5.3010200@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees by Ciaran McCreesh
1 Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
2 > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
3 > wrote:
4 > | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many
5 > | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec
6 > | bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after five months
7 > | then I'll probably just nuke the ebuild and drop your keywords
8 >
9 > Which is dumb. There's no harm to be had in just leaving the ebuild
10 > there.
11
12 Accumulating broken old vulnerable and unsupported junk in tree for the
13 sole sake of arches that noone cares about enough to keyword something
14 newer for months harms everyone who uses rsync, wastes disk space for
15 users, wastes disk space on mirrors, makes CVS and portage slower,
16 wastes maintainers time... No harm? Nonsense.
17
18
19 --
20 Best regards,
21
22 Jakub Moc
23 mailto:jakub@g.o
24 GPG signature:
25 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
26 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E
27
28 ... still no signature ;)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>