* [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay
@ 2016-07-08 15:11 99% William Hubbs
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: William Hubbs @ 2016-07-08 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1345 bytes --]
I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate
discussion.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
> > > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are
> > > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to
> > > p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I
> > > remove them from the tree in 30 days.
> > >
> >
> > IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not. Not whether
> > upstream is more or less active.
> >
> > If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them. However,
> > if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in
> > the repo, then they should probably stay.
>
> +1
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew Savchenko
There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the official
tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it doesn't
have an active maintainer.
I don't know why we haven't been using this, but using it more than we
have makes a lot of sense.
William
[1] https://github.com/gentoo/graveyard
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2016-07-08 15:11 99% [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay William Hubbs
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox