| 1 |
Hello Ciaran! |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> What's the proper fix for when keyword requests stagnate in |
| 4 |
>> bugzilla? |
| 5 |
> That depends upon whether the keyword request is important. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Let's take a real world example: KDE 3.5.5 is old, buggy and has some |
| 8 |
important issues which won't be fixed anymore. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
At first, this wasn't too important, so we did what you suggested: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> If it isn't, you wait for the arch team to get around to it. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Nothing happened for months. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> If it is (and legitimately so |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I hope you'll accept it when I say that 3.5.5 is such a legitimate case now. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> you ask the arch team to prioritise it, explaining why. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
We did this. We asked on Bugzilla, by mail, I explained it in |
| 23 |
#gentoo-mips and in /queries. Nothing happened for months. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
What would you suggest to do now? I think we've done all we could |
| 26 |
short of the following: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
a) Drop all keywords but those of mips. Leaves mips and, more |
| 29 |
importantly, its users with a vulnerable and unmaintained set of |
| 30 |
packages. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
b) package.mask 3.5.5 with a big, fat warning and let the users |
| 33 |
decide. Same drawbacks as a). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
c) Drop 3.5.5 from the tree. The cleanest but most radical solution. |
| 36 |
If mips' users want KDE, they would have to bug (sic!) the mips team. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The solution I favour by far is c). What's your suggestion or did I |
| 39 |
miss any other viable solution? Just doing nothing is not an option |
| 40 |
here, I'd say, but state your case. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives