[gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 481 bytes --]

Although I'm the nominal maintainer of dev-python/quixote, I don't use
it for anything and I've been having difficulties finding someone to
take over maintenance.  If nobody wants it then I'm going to suggest we
yank it from the tree and let the people who need it grab versions from
bugzilla.

Best,
g2boojum
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Although I'm the nominal maintainer of dev-python/quixote, I don't use
> it for anything and I've been having difficulties finding someone to
> take over maintenance.  If nobody wants it then I'm going to suggest we
> yank it from the tree and let the people who need it grab versions from
> bugzilla.
> 
> Best,
> g2boojum

Checked the bugzilla and the two open bugs seem to be version bumps. I
think the policy is not to remove working ebuilds from the tree although
they are not maintained by anyone.

Regards,
Petteri Räty


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 560 bytes --]

On Monday 31 October 2005 22:44, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Checked the bugzilla and the two open bugs seem to be version bumps. I
> think the policy is not to remove working ebuilds from the tree although
> they are not maintained by anyone.

It's not policy to keep unmaintained stuff in the repository either. I really 
welcome it, when someone takes the stance to clean out the tree a bit. 
There's too much unmaintained or even broken stuff in it.

I think Grant should go for it, unless you or someone else takes over 
maintainership.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 650 bytes --]


1.11.2005, 18:04:08, Carsten Lohrke wrote:

> On Monday 31 October 2005 22:44, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Checked the bugzilla and the two open bugs seem to be version bumps. I
>> think the policy is not to remove working ebuilds from the tree although
>> they are not maintained by anyone.

> It's not policy to keep unmaintained stuff in the repository either. I really
> welcome it, when someone takes the stance to clean out the tree a bit. 
> There's too much unmaintained or even broken stuff in it.

> I think Grant should go for it, unless you or someone else takes over 
> maintainership.

OK, lets remove perl.


-- 
 Jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 228 bytes --]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:11, Jakub Moc wrote:
> OK, lets remove perl.

Such a reply is not an argument, but pointless. As you know as well, Perl is 
not exactly something other packages do not depend on.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1283 bytes --]


1.11.2005, 18:40:35, Carsten Lohrke wrote:

> On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:11, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> OK, lets remove perl.

> Such a reply is not an argument, but pointless. As you know as well, Perl is 
> not exactly something other packages do not depend on.

As already stated by Flameeyes, we could produce a list of hundreds of ebuilds to remove,
just because they are unmaintained. So, let's start alphabetically:

   app-arch/arc
   app-arch/lha
   app-arch/pdv
   app-arch/rpm
   app-arch/upm
   app-arch/upx
   app-arch/zip
   app-arch/dump
   app-arch/lzop
   app-arch/gtk-splitter
   app-arch/mscompress
   app-arch/cksfv
   app-arch/tardy
   app-arch/unace
   app-arch/unarj
   app-arch/bsdsfv
   app-arch/stuffit
   app-arch/guitar
   app-arch/upx-ucl

Good luck with that approach... :)

OK, if someone wants some starting point that makes at least some sense, see
http://tinyurl.com/bbvxs which lists open bugs assigned to maintainer-needed
that are not enhancement/version bump.
   
-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Jon Portnoy]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:04:08PM +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 22:44, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Checked the bugzilla and the two open bugs seem to be version bumps. I
> > think the policy is not to remove working ebuilds from the tree although
> > they are not maintained by anyone.
> 
> It's not policy to keep unmaintained stuff in the repository either.

You are technically correct in the sense that there is literally no 
policy stating "keep unmaintained stuff in the repository."

However, going around removing things simply because they're 
unmaintained is no good. Unmaintained and broken is a different story.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 902 bytes --]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 18:43, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> You are technically correct in the sense that there is literally no
> policy stating "keep unmaintained stuff in the repository."

All I wanted to say is that we have no policy about it and a fair share of 
rotten ebuilds in the repository reflects this. I do not say we should remove 
every (temporarily) unmaintained package, nor do I care about exactly this 
one, but at least grant does it in this case and advises to remove it, if no 
one is willing to take it. Now we can hear voices "no, someone could miss 
it", instead just taking over maintainership. 

The bottom line: No one really needs to take care of the packages they 
maintain and those who do, get the reply not to do. Oh, if Grant just had 
(against policy) removed the package silently as others did here and there - 
probably no one had bothered.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 468 bytes --]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:43:16 -0500 Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> wrote:
| However, going around removing things simply because they're 
| unmaintained is no good. Unmaintained and broken is a different story.

How about "unmaintained and in need of version bumps that no-one is
going to do"?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 471 bytes --]

On Tuesday 01 November 2005 19:49, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> How about "unmaintained and in need of version bumps that no-one is
> going to do"?
Depends on the need. Debian is able to cope with old versions of software 
without problems.
If there are no outstanding bugs about the package, a need of a bump is not a 
requirement.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 758 bytes --]

On Monday 31 October 2005 22:44, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Checked the bugzilla and the two open bugs seem to be version bumps. I
> think the policy is not to remove working ebuilds from the tree although
> they are not maintained by anyone.
I follow Petteri's statement, I don't think we should remove a package just 
because it has noone maintaining it, and is just hanging below latest 
versions, without other reasons, else we should remove a good 90% of what we 
have in media-video and media-sound.

It's different if things accumulates bug over bugs, like xmms was, or are 
broken and unmaintained upstream.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/ALT lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

Okay, it seems that I should have provided many more details.

Quixote is "A simple but powerful Web development framework for Python
programmers".  It's very low-level, but at the same time it's
exceedingly sane.  When I added quixote to portage it was just going
through its 1.0 release.  I'm still not entirely comfortable handling
webapp-based ebuilds, but quixote itself is not too difficult to
maintain by itself.  In practice, though, people using quixote are
likely to want to any of the following support packages that have sprung
up over the last year or two: durus (object database), dulcinea
(quixote/dulcinea helper modules), scgi (alternative to fast-cgi),
and Sancho (Python unit-testing framework).  Many of the packages have
ebuilds in bugs, but to date nobody has been willing to maintain them.
I'm not that interested in web applications myself, so I'm unwilling to
invest the time necessary to make sure that Gentoo has a functional
quixote + helpers framework.  *Shrug*  The result is that Gentoo's
support for quixote is horribly inadequate.  

My view is that if a package is in the tree, then there's an implicit
understanding that we're maintaining it.  If we're not, then I really
think it should go away.  (Note, by the way, that this argument is
completely unrelated to whether or not we should have
upstream-unmaintained packages in the tree.  As long as a Gentoo dev is
willing to look after those packages when necessary, then I see no
reason we shouldn't have those packages.)

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]