| 1 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 07:29:35 PM Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 2 |
> I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures. I was under the |
| 7 |
> impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before their |
| 8 |
> obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> And if that's not the case, should it be? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
has a bug noting why bopm is being removed. It was mentioned in there that |
| 15 |
hopm isn't in tree, sure. It's also mentioned that bopm's default configuration |
| 16 |
doesn't really do anything, as it depends on a service that was shuttered back |
| 17 |
in 2013. (If I read the bug report correctly.) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
However, note that in that bug, bopm is listed has not having a maintainer in |
| 20 |
Gentoo...no dev (or volunteer) is maintaining it. Without a maintainer, |
| 21 |
there's nobody with access who's motivated to add hopm. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If you'd like to see hopm in the tree, you care more about it than any of the |
| 24 |
current devs. Which means you should probably look at |
| 25 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers and see about becoming |
| 26 |
a proxy maintainer for it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
:wq |
Archives