On Monday 11 January 2010 22:43:18 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:37 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
> > On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote:
> >> As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this.
> >
> > Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal.
> >   It would be conspicuous in its absence.
> >
> > Would it make sense to post on -dev BEFORE masking packages like this?
> > I'm sure there are lots of people who would chip in before something
> > like this dies.
> 
> (A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich)
> 
> Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners:
> The fact is, some of us have never heard of "inn" and until Gentoo has
> some sort of "popularity tracking" software/tool, the treecleaners will
> continue to mask unmaintained software. We can't possible know about every
> package in the tree and if it looks like it is unmaintained (open bugs w/o
> action) then we will mask it for removal unless someone fixes it and
> maintains it.

you need to fix your filter then.  an "open bug" is not an acceptable reason 
for masking a package.  if you're going to clean a package, you need to 
research actual reasons to mask & punt.
-mike