| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 18:23 +0100, Jakub Moc 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 sec |
| 7 |
> > | bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after five months |
| 8 |
> > | then I'll probably just nuke the ebuild and drop your keywords |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Which is dumb. There's no harm to be had in just leaving the ebuild |
| 11 |
> > there. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Accumulating broken old vulnerable and unsupported junk in tree for the |
| 14 |
> sole sake of arches that noone cares about enough to keyword something |
| 15 |
> newer for months harms everyone who uses rsync, wastes disk space for |
| 16 |
> users, wastes disk space on mirrors, makes CVS and portage slower, |
| 17 |
> wastes maintainers time... No harm? Nonsense. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
Well, there's a bit more to it than "noone cares about". Biggest |
| 21 |
problem I have seen (although seldom) is when the "fixed" version is |
| 22 |
broken for us. In such cases, we will note the problem on the bug, but |
| 23 |
obviously will not keyword the "fixed" version, and we need the old |
| 24 |
version until the package maintainer corrects the problem. Thus, we |
| 25 |
have no control over any 5 month, 6 month, forever rule. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Ferris |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 31 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc) |
Archives