| 1 |
I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate |
| 2 |
discussion. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages |
| 9 |
> > > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are |
| 10 |
> > > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to |
| 11 |
> > > p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I |
| 12 |
> > > remove them from the tree in 30 days. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not. Not whether |
| 16 |
> > upstream is more or less active. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them. However, |
| 19 |
> > if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in |
| 20 |
> > the repo, then they should probably stay. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> +1 |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Best regards, |
| 25 |
> Andrew Savchenko |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the official |
| 28 |
tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it doesn't |
| 29 |
have an active maintainer. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I don't know why we haven't been using this, but using it more than we |
| 32 |
have makes a lot of sense. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
[1] https://github.com/gentoo/graveyard |
Archives