| 1 |
Am 14.02.2013 22:55, schrieb Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina: |
| 2 |
> On 02/14/2013 04:31 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hi guys and girls, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> We hereby announce the formation of the Graveyard project [1]. It aims |
| 6 |
>> to provide users with an overlay for packages removed from portage. |
| 7 |
>> Users are expressly invited to partake in this project, to help |
| 8 |
>> maintain the graveyard overlay [2]. We will also help organize a |
| 9 |
>> central space to host distfiles that are no longer mirrored by Gentoo |
| 10 |
>> and have a broken upstream link. We use the #gentoo-dev-help channel |
| 11 |
>> on Freenode for coordination, as well as our project space on the wiki |
| 12 |
>> [3]. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What exactly is wrong with the current cvs attic space? I've salvaged |
| 15 |
> old ebuilds and it was a completely painless process. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The attic is not a ready-to-use overlay. Part of the idea is to remove |
| 19 |
the effort of keeping local overlays. Why revive a package N times when |
| 20 |
one time is sufficient? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Besides, distfiles for ebuilds in the attic are probably no longer |
| 23 |
mirrored and for dead upstreams, they might not exist anywhere else, either. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Things that have been treecleaned were not just haphazardly removed, |
| 26 |
> there is typically very good (often security or complete build failure |
| 27 |
> related) reasons for this to happen. Running an overlay of old, |
| 28 |
> outdated, unbuildable, security vulnerable software... I know there is |
| 29 |
> no formal process for rejecting a gentoo project but even this idea |
| 30 |
> makes me want to get council approval for an extension to the gentoo |
| 31 |
> project guidelines. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
There have been at least three discussions on what is to be treecleaned |
| 35 |
and what not in the past few months. I don't think we have to re-iterate |
| 36 |
them. Suffice to say there are more than enough cases where a) no dev |
| 37 |
wants to maintain a package anymore, b) a case can be made that the |
| 38 |
package should not be left rotting in tree and c) someone might still |
| 39 |
have use for the package. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
There is simply an unsolvable disagreement between those who want a |
| 42 |
slick and well maintained tree and those who view the sheer size of the |
| 43 |
tree as one of Gentoo's assets. In this way. the whole discussion |
| 44 |
reminds me of the deletionism debate on Wikipedia [1] with the |
| 45 |
difference that here there is an easy compromise. So why not make it? |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> If users want to salvage things from the cvs attic and put them into |
| 48 |
> SUNRISE after fixing them up I'm fine with it, but the whole idea of |
| 49 |
> this is bad for gentoo developers, bad for gentoo users, bad for gentoo |
| 50 |
> image, I just don't see a single advantage to this and so many |
| 51 |
> disadvantages. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Why is the overlay bad for anyone? No dev is forced to contribute to it |
| 55 |
and no user has to activate it. There are dozens of overlays out there |
| 56 |
which are not meant to be activated unless you know what you are doing. |
| 57 |
I don't see how this can affect Gentoo's image (as observed by whom, |
| 58 |
anyway?). I mean, it's no different than the attic, just more |
| 59 |
convenient. It's just one more niche in this great Gentoo ecosystem. |
| 60 |
kde-sunset isn't hurting anyone, either. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Regards, |
| 65 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives