Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

[Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>]

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
> > | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just
> > | institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a
> > | virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if
> > | necessary.
> > 
> > Much more sensible.
> 
> I've thought some about this. It would be acceptable to me for
> virtual/x11 to provide modular X deps, if we also instituted a repoman
> death upon any attempt to commit to a directory for which the best
> visible package is broken.
> 
> This will accomplish the goal of discovering completely unmaintained
> packages but will fail in the goal of discovering which packages nobody
> uses. They'll still continue to rot in the tree, unmaintained, unused
> and taking up space in everybody's syncs.
> 
> How's that sound?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor how 
a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a 
repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' ride, 
I'm personally all for it.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list