| 1 |
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:23:49 +0100 Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 3 |
| > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> |
| 4 |
| > wrote: |
| 5 |
| > | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many |
| 6 |
| > | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a |
| 7 |
| > | sec bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after five |
| 8 |
| > | months then I'll probably just nuke the ebuild and drop your |
| 9 |
| > | keywords |
| 10 |
| > |
| 11 |
| > Which is dumb. There's no harm to be had in just leaving the ebuild |
| 12 |
| > there. |
| 13 |
| |
| 14 |
| Accumulating broken old vulnerable and unsupported junk in tree |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
There is no accumulation. It's already there. And if packages are that |
| 17 |
bad, perhaps you should ask yourself why they have a stable keyword at |
| 18 |
all. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
| for the sole sake of arches that noone cares about enough to keyword |
| 21 |
| something newer for months |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you're taking that argument, one could just as easily claim that the |
| 24 |
packages should be removed entirely since the arch teams don't care |
| 25 |
enough to keyword them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 29 |
Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 30 |
Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 31 |
as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 |
Archives