[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Samuli Suominen]

# Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (21 Jul 2007)
# Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
# Masked for removal in 30 days.
x11-misc/fsv
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 275 bytes --]

On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (21 Jul 2007)
> # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
> # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> x11-misc/fsv

in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Samuli Suominen]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:27:32 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (21 Jul 2007)
> > # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
> > # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> > x11-misc/fsv
> in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ?
> -mike

well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to version 2
from upstream is a valid reason, BUT it doesn't draw the graphics
correctly and seems broken with current mesa -- draws white artifacts.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1020 bytes --]

On Sunday 22 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > > # Samuli Suominen <drac@gentoo.org> (21 Jul 2007)
> > > # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
> > > # Masked for removal in 30 days.
> > > x11-misc/fsv
> >
> > in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ?
>
> well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to version 2
> from upstream is a valid reason

punting a package because you disagree with the implementation is not a valid 
reason.  nor is an upstream who hasnt touched a package in ages.  there are 
plenty of packages in system which could be punted using this reasoning 
leaving Gentoo broken.

> BUT it doesn't draw the graphics correctly and seems broken with current
> mesa -- draws white artifacts. 

if the package doesnt function properly, that is a reason.  it runs fine for 
me, but i'm not interested in supporting the package.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Steve Long]

Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Sunday 22 July 2007, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> > > # Last release from 1999, still using GTK+-1.2.
>> >
>> > in other words, you have no real reason for punting this package ?
>>
>> well, for me gtk+-1.2 and no intentions of upgrading it to version 2
>> from upstream is a valid reason
> 
> punting a package because you disagree with the implementation is not a
> valid reason.  nor is an upstream who hasnt touched a package in ages. 
> there are plenty of packages in system which could be punted using this
> reasoning leaving Gentoo broken.
> 
I tried to get some clarity on this wrt bug 140498 ("GTK+-1.2 needs to
die" ;-)) which seemed to contradict Mr Frysinger. Summary:
<dev> "Upstream no longer maintaining it is a fine reason, and commonly
given.. system, kernel, and toolchain are special." [maintainer's
discretion for most stuff iow]

aiui, if there are no bugs the package goes to maintainer-wanted so a user
can pick it up for sunrise.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Ryan Hill]

Steve Long wrote:

> aiui, if there are no bugs the package goes to maintainer-wanted so a user
> can pick it up for sunrise.

Almost.  Sunrise can only handle maintainer-needed packages; those that
aren't in the tree yet.

-- 
dirtyepic    you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
 gentoo org          in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Ryan Hill]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Steve Long wrote:
> 
>> aiui, if there are no bugs the package goes to maintainer-wanted so a user
>> can pick it up for sunrise.
> 
> Almost.  Sunrise can only handle maintainer-needed packages; those that
> aren't in the tree yet.

Bah, I screwed that up.  s/needed/wanted/  So yeah, you're right, if it
was removed it could go into Sunrise.  But the point is upstream not
maintaining something is not reason enough for removing it.  Upstream
not maintaining it and it being broken is.  Upstream not maintaining it
and it being an unwanted pain in the ass is also popular one.


-- 
dirtyepic    you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
 gentoo org          in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: x11-misc/fsv

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 304 bytes --]

On Saturday 28 July 2007, Ryan Hill wrote:
> But the point is upstream not
> maintaining something is not reason enough for removing it.  Upstream
> not maintaining it and it being broken is.  Upstream not maintaining it
> and it being an unwanted pain in the ass is also popular one.

all correct
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]