Re: [gentoo-dev] quixote currently unmaintained

[Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 --]