| 1 |
Le 09/11/2009 17:30, Patrick Lauer a écrit : |
| 2 |
> Ok, here's the real problem; |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "Unmaintained stuff is unmaintained" |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Patrick, |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Just piping in to say that dropping a package from portage isn't the end |
| 9 |
of the world, we have a very good process for it and it has proven to be |
| 10 |
very effective. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Dead packages should be masked : |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
1) it tells users that no-one among us devs really care about the |
| 15 |
package. And it's good because we're not lying or pretending to care. I |
| 16 |
think it's honest of us to admit that some packages are abandoned. Users |
| 17 |
deserve to know. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
2) it sends a crystal-clear message that this package is up for grabs, |
| 20 |
either by another dev or by a user with a proxy-maintainer. This is yet |
| 21 |
another good thing because it might encourage users to join our ranks. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
3) it allows to effectively clear out cruft, and $deity knows portage is |
| 24 |
full of it. Faster sync times, fewer security risks, etc. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So while of course we're not going to p.mask perl because its sole |
| 27 |
maintainer has decided to stop working on it, but for _less_ _important_ |
| 28 |
packages, masking and treecleaning is a *good* thing. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
And besides, the beauty of CVS is that deleted files are never really |
| 31 |
gone, so a deleted package can be brought back from the dead in a few |
| 32 |
minutes. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
So really, don't feel obliged to touch/bump/fix all unmaintained |
| 35 |
packages, fix those that you use and treeclean the rest. It'll be for |
| 36 |
the best. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Cheers, |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Rémi |
Archives