| 1 |
On 2016.01.21 16:53, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 7 |
> > > Hash: SHA256 |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within |
| 10 |
> them, I |
| 11 |
> > > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition |
| 12 |
> > > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I |
| 13 |
> was |
| 14 |
> > > wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible |
| 15 |
> > > solutions. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at |
| 18 |
> this |
| 19 |
> > > time, look like they will not be claimed by developers. This will |
| 20 |
> > > likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages |
| 21 |
> (and |
| 22 |
> > > subsequent package rot). This isn't to say that some of these |
| 23 |
> > > packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, |
| 24 |
> but |
| 25 |
> > > now, they will explicitly be there. |
| 26 |
> > > |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Speaking as the dude who founded the treecleaners project...all |
| 29 |
> things die. |
| 30 |
> > Even software. While some may yearn for a software archive (nee, |
| 31 |
> > graveyard!), I put forth that the gentoo-x86 tree is not such a |
| 32 |
> thing. Do |
| 33 |
> > not weep for the unmaintained packages that will be cleaned![1] |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> I couldn't have said this better myself. The gentoo-x86 tree is not a |
| 36 |
> software archival service. If packages are unmaintained, that is what |
| 37 |
> the treecleaners project is for is to boot those packages out of the |
| 38 |
> tree. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I would like to see a possible timelimit set on how long packages can |
| 41 |
> stay in maintainer-needed; once a package goes there, if we can't find |
| 42 |
> someone to maintain it, we should consider booting it after that time |
| 43 |
> limit passes. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> If someone wants to run the graveyard overlay and keep those old |
| 46 |
> packages around more power to them, but they definitely do not |
| 47 |
> belong in the main tree if they are unmaintained for an extended |
| 48 |
> period |
| 49 |
> of time. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> William |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
There is no point in removing unmaintained but perfectly functional software from the tree. |
| 56 |
It needs to be both unmaintained and broken. Broken being evidenced by at least one open bug. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
How would you define unmaintained? |
| 59 |
Maybe its not changed for a year or two because there is no need for any maintenance? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Regards, |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Roy Bamford |
| 65 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 66 |
elections |
| 67 |
gentoo-ops |
| 68 |
forum-mods |
| 69 |
trustees |
Archives