Re: [gentoo-dev] The future of the Sunrise project

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> napisał(a):
>On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o
>> <mailto:robbat2@g.o>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
>>>     > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny
><mgorny@g.o <mailto:mgorny@g.o>> wrote:
>>>     > > Your thoughts?
>>>     > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better
>than
>>>     > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the
>latter.
>>>     The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with
>the
>>>     500+ packages in sunrise.
>>>
>>>     I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need
>for
>>>     something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt
>into
>>>     the tree.
>>
>> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to
>> elsewhere as resources permit?
>>
>> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things.
>>
>
>Isn't that effectively where we are already at though?  If the last
>push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already.
> I guess we just need to announce it..?
>
>As for what to do with the packages that exist already....  what about
>adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of:
>
>"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package
>please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a
>priority for migration"
>
>..or similar?

Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect?

Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny (by phone)