From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B101387E0 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 03:08:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EC63E049A; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 03:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-1.ca.inter.net (mail-1.ca.inter.net [208.85.220.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75BE8E0417 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 03:08:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (offload-3.ca.inter.net [208.85.220.70]) by mail-1.ca.inter.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B882EA173 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 22:08:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-1.ca.inter.net ([208.85.220.69]) by localhost (offload-3.ca.inter.net [208.85.220.70]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMSqdURJk52h for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 22:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ca.inter.net (unknown [216.99.52.73]) by mail-1.ca.inter.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A6BAC2EA26C for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 22:08:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by ca.inter.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:08:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 22:08:52 -0500 From: Philip Webb To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Please stop useless removals Message-ID: <20130202030852.GE884@ca.inter.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <510BE47D.3010103@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 94034549-82f0-48bd-8a1e-b312845d2cc0 X-Archives-Hash: 2210f19e74c063733cfee3cc7f45d2ef 130201 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> The actual reason for removal is the following: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298 > I'm perfectly fine with masking/removing packages > that do not have valid SRC_URIs > and if somebody wants to host the tarball somewhere > and submit a patch to fix it we shouldn't have a problem > with a dev committing that patch and prolonging the package a bit longer. > Bottom line is that we shouldn't drop packages > simply because they're unmaintained or lack an upstream. +1 > Missing SRC_URIs on unmaintained packages are fair game, however, > as are other serious issues. I have no desire > to make the mirror maintainers sort thro log noise on something like this. If a mere user may comment (smile), I use >= 1 pkg which hasn't been updated for a long time, Apwal, but is in fact an excellent little app which deserves wider knowledge. It's one of those apps which needs no further development. There are also pkgs like Nethack, which is hard-masked because there's a serious security bug on multi-user systems, but which offers no problems on a single-user desktop. -- ========================,,============================================ SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca