Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: last rite of dev-python/elixir
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:20:33
Message-Id: CAG2jQ8gAOapA+7T68-7tfMDx0U+NLETNHQAMouzcTu2OqntUqQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: last rite of dev-python/elixir by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 On 6 June 2013 11:32, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
2 > IAN DELANEY posted on Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:55:16 +0800 as excerpted:
3 >
4 >> # Ian Delaney <idella4@g.o> (06 Jun 2013)
5 >> # Masked for removal in ~ 30 days. Upstream inactive dev-python/elixir
6 >
7 > Where's the bug reference one would normally expect to see with such an
8 > announcement?
9 >
10 > AFAIK, simply inactive upstream hasn't traditionally been enough to
11 > trigger removal, as long as the package still builds and has no serious
12 > bugs, and is still either legally mirrored and redistributable, or
13 > remains legally available from an otherwise inactive upstream.
14 >
15 > Of course if there's serious bugs (including that it's no longer
16 > available to build in the first place), that's an entirely different
17 > matter, but then there should be a reference to such bugs in the
18 > announcement/mask, and there was no such reference in this case.
19 >
20 > --
21 > Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
22 > "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
23 > and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
24 >
25 >
26
27 I agree.
28
29 If upstream inactivity is the only reason to remove it, then don't!
30
31 --
32 Regards,
33 Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
34 http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang