Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-text/cuneiform

["Róbert Čerňanský" <openhs@tightmail.com>]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:40:17 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Markos Chandras
> <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I don't mind adding that link to every package mask. Do note thought
> > that this is not the only way for a package to be rescued (assuming
> > it can be rescued). Providing fixes without becoming the maintainer
> > is also a viable solution, which is probably something we need to
> > add to that page as well.
> 
> I started something at:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/treeclean.txt

It is relief to see that someone is trying to listen and do something
constructive about this long standing problem.  However, with all due
respect, I do not think that the document will help very much.  I
think most users are aware of the possibilities they have to save a
package.  They just do not have will, time or priority to do so for a
particular package they are using (this fact is essential to accept in
order to understand the problem here).

What I have expressed in rather theatrical way in my previous mail, is
the fact that unresolved bugs contributes to the package removal.
This may lead to _not_ reporting a bugs on purpose in order to lower
the possibility that the package will be removed.  I may say that I am
afraid to submit a bug for some packages and for some cases I
willingly do not report any for the very same reason.  Sad but true.

How it can be mitigated?  In my opinion by applying 30 days removal
policy only to packages that are completely broken.  So packages that
-- according to current policy -- would have been 30d masked for
removal, would be _just masked_ (no 30d removal).  This has following
advantages:

1. Users can submit as many bugs as they want without being afraid
   that it will contribute to removal of the package.  Documented bugs
   are better than hidden bugs.

2. Users can still use the package while being aware that it is
   partially broken.  They can find known bugs in bugzilla.

3. Users can still submit new bugs or workarounds to existing bugs.

4. Users can submit patches, effectively maintain the package even no
   official proxy maintainer was established.  (If from time to time
   some dev would bring provided patches to the tree, even better.)

5. Since the mask period will be likely longer than 30d there is a
   bigger chance that someone will take proxy/maintainership, or that
   someone will submit provided patches to the upstream.  Even users
   or devs that usually do not have will, time or priority to take
   care of the particular package could find some -- e. g. during
   summer or so -- and provide a patch.

During the mask period Gentoo will basically be providing just the
infrastructure.

Sorry that I am addressing the policy here even you explicitly said in
the document not to do so.  I will not make this post longer than it
is in trying to explain why I am doing it.  I just hope you (and other
devs) will try to listen.

Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: openhs@tightmail.com
Jabber: hs@jabber.sk