| 1 |
>>>>> "Petteri" == Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Petteri> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to |
| 4 |
Petteri> EAPI 2. If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we |
| 5 |
Petteri> want to keep live ebuilds for them around? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
What possible benefit could be had from dropping ebuilds for no other |
| 8 |
reason than their EAPI? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
(Incidently, since I mentioned it as the one I remembered from the first |
| 11 |
post, I see that git-9999 is EAPI 2 even though it does use built_with_use.) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Any mass removal should be as conservative as possible in the list of |
| 14 |
things removed, just like anything which declares something unlawful |
| 15 |
should be interpreted narrowly. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Your initial post indicated that you only wanted to drop ebuilds which |
| 18 |
were unlikely to be in use by users. Given the fact that most (all?) |
| 19 |
live ebuilds are masked, any automated tests for the likelyhood that |
| 20 |
an ebuild is in active use will, by definition, have false negatives |
| 21 |
when dealing with live ebuilds. (Where false negative means unlikely |
| 22 |
to be in use even though it, in fact, is in use.) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And even if you did not intend to limit your removals as much as you |
| 25 |
indicated, it is still wrong to remove anything which the userbase |
| 26 |
actively uses. These are not ebuilds which are broken, just ones |
| 27 |
which, while functional, remain imperfect. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-JimC |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6 |
Archives