Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:41:40
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in dev-python/PyZilla: PyZilla-0.1.0.ebuild ChangeLog metadata.xml by Alec Warner
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: >> Just start removing old[1] maintainer-needed packages. If people >> complain, tell them to start maintaining it. If they continue to >> complain, ignore them. As tree-cleaner, you have the power to do this >> and not take bullshit from people about it. > > The intent of the TreeCleaner project (years ago) was to essentially > look for packages in bugzilla that had lots of bugs and no maintainer. >  For a while beandog essentially maintained a site that tracked this > for us (Gentoo Package that need Lovin' was the awesome title.) > > From that list you either fixed the problems and commited them (e.g. > you were a roving package maintainer) or you pmasked it and marked it > for the deadpool. > > There is not much policy on treecleaning a package just because no one > has touched it.  Time since last touch was just one of a dozen > indicators used to find packages that are broken (because a package > not touched since 2006 is also not likely to compile.) >
Sure, that's the history. But what made sense back then doesn't make sense now. Back then we didn't have 600+ packages that no one maintains, and whose bugs go almost entirely unread. We had crazy amounts of manpower back then. As we evolve, the responsibilities of the different parts of Gentoo also evolve. As such, the tree-cleaners project has evolved, and if the team isn't allowed to clean the tree, then why do we even have it anymore? I really don't understand *why* people want to keep around unmaintained packages. If a package is not maintained, we should come up and say it outright. Trying to maintain the illusion of maintenance is really bad — for each person reporting a bug about a package, 100 people who got that same bug don't report it at all. So what happens when there are just 50 users for some packages? Half the time we won't even know that one of them is broken[1]. The rest of the time, users will get a bad impression of Gentoo saying "Man, half the packages don't even work". It's really simple: (a) If the package has plenty of users, there should be no problems finding a maintainer or a proxy-maintainer. (b) If the package has few users and is high-maintenance, it's either already broken, or will get broken soon without a maintainer. Find one or remove it! (c) If the package has few users and is low-maintenance, package.mask it so we can figure out who the users are, and we can get them to proxy-maintain it, it's so little work anyway, right? (d) If the package has very few or no users, what the hell is it doing unmaintained in the tree? It's just eating up disk inodes and space. We all like to boast about how gentoo has 15,000 packages, but we neglect to mention that more than 1000 of these are either unmaintained or very poorly maintained. And this is a very conservative number. Let's not turn portage into a graveyard for packages. Let's just remove crap. 1. Writer is bad at statistics, this is probably inaccurate. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team