| 1 |
Thanks, Alin. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
This was the type of constructive response I was hoping to provoke. |
| 4 |
Don't get me wrong - I like genlop, however software "final state" does |
| 5 |
not exist IMO, and bugfixing is hugely important with any software. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Also, by "dead upstream" I mean that the page does not even exist |
| 8 |
anymore, not just that there is no activity. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 12:33 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 11 |
> Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> >As the original handler of genlop (it was assigned to perl herd when it |
| 14 |
> >first was asked to be added, since its written in perl) I strongly vote |
| 15 |
> >against dropping the package (ok, I didn't even realize it had been |
| 16 |
> >switched over to the portage-tools group for maintenance, and as such |
| 17 |
> >that there were even bugs open against it). The funny thing about no |
| 18 |
> >more activity upstream is this: why would there be? Except for bug |
| 19 |
> >fixes, it does a simple job, and it does it damned well: it parses your |
| 20 |
> >emerge log and gives you just the output you want and need. Don't |
| 21 |
> >abandon a tool just because it has reached its final state ;) |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> Well, a homepage would be a nice thing to have. |
| 26 |
> I also think that is a very useful tool. If no one will step forward, I |
| 27 |
> will take its maintainership. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives