| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 09:29 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> > and then what ? if you're proposing removal of packages due solely to no |
| 3 |
> > maintainer, then we're going to have to slap you around. dont remove |
| 4 |
> > packages for that reason alone. |
| 5 |
> > -mike |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> So I guess the idea would then be, how do you find packages in the tree |
| 8 |
> where dev FooGuy once maintained it but no longer does (because FooGuy |
| 9 |
> left) and the package is old and nasty and no one cares about it. Leave |
| 10 |
> it in the tree anyway? I certainly don't want unmaintained CRAP in the |
| 11 |
> tree, although unmaintained decent programs are good. By decent I mean |
| 12 |
> programs that are generally so old they never have version bumps ;) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The simple rule is leave it the hell alone. If it is completely broken, |
| 15 |
there will be bugs filed. If nobody steps up to claim the package, |
| 16 |
then, and only then, is it removed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Did you look at the list of packages? I mean, how exactly broken can |
| 19 |
"descent1-maps" get? *grin* |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Package removal because it has no maintainer would probably remove a |
| 22 |
large portion of the tree, possibly even packages that are necessary for |
| 23 |
many people. There's quite a few packages that get maintained simply by |
| 24 |
people fixing problems with them, but with no real "maintainer". While |
| 25 |
this isn't the best solution, removing them from the tree just for this |
| 26 |
reason is asinine. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 30 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 31 |
Games - Developer |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives