1 |
On Saturday 01 April 2006 22:52, Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
> > Yes, there is. It's slowing down the process, getting into the flow. |
3 |
> > Waiting 30 days is a lot of time. A regular user does not necessarily |
4 |
> > follow the dev-gentoo mailing list and it doesn't matter for him, if the |
5 |
> > package is masked or removed. |
6 |
|
7 |
First of all I'm not a dev but I do read the dev mailing list exactly because |
8 |
I want to know whats going on because changes to the tree normally really hit |
9 |
me without warning. The apache config layout change hit me when I needed to |
10 |
upgrade and had not the time to mess with configuration issues. Thats because |
11 |
I am not the typical gentoo-i-have-to-sync-every-30-seconds user. The last |
12 |
time I synced was about 3 weeks ago. On my server its even more than that. I |
13 |
generally sync when I need a new version of something because I know of a |
14 |
bugfix/feature I need or when I see a GLSA (or Bugtraq posting by some other |
15 |
distro/vuln researcher and the gentoo package is already fixed without a GLSA |
16 |
being out). That being said, changes in package naming/categorization or |
17 |
configuration layout (think apache mess), is by far worse than an old package |
18 |
being removed. For a dev 30 days may be a long time indeed. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Because everyone is sitting in anticipation of the package being |
21 |
> removed? Mask the package, and go about your life as if it was gone. |
22 |
> Then in a month when you remember about it again, remove it. |
23 |
|
24 |
What does the month give you? Nothing. If someone was trying to update his |
25 |
sodipodi manually he would mostly get nothing because upstream was dead. |
26 |
Masking helps during that 30 days, after that you don't know whats going on |
27 |
either. And considering that upstream is dead for about a year I think most |
28 |
people will not try to update that package every 2 days or something like |
29 |
that. |
30 |
|
31 |
> By your logic, we should do away with the entire masking process and |
32 |
> just remove stuff when we like, and that would just lead to users filing |
33 |
> lots of bugs asking where their package went. |
34 |
|
35 |
How about removing the package (its dead anyway) BUT keeping a message for all |
36 |
those trying to update. I don't know if that is even possible but it would be |
37 |
good to keep that message for more than 30 days. |
38 |
|
39 |
> Everyone used to wait the month, but lately it seems like no one can |
40 |
> ignore the package for that long after putting it in p.mask. |
41 |
|
42 |
I totally agree with you on that. If 30 days are the documented period, then |
43 |
devs have to stick to it. If it is too long for them: Change the documented |
44 |
time period first! At least that would be professinal. |
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
Alex |
48 |
-- |
49 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |