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 0FBAF58973 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48BF221C048; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58E6921C01B for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 247E6340AF7 for ; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 21:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 16:33:46 -0500 From: Mike Frysinger To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings Message-ID: <20160122213346.GU14840@vapier.lan> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <20160121165358.GA18561@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160121184520.6d472d7a.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160122120407.428ef591@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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0kAGJ5Hb5f/LtdyK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160122120407.428ef591@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 4e3a544a-36ef-4399-93c3-82e5c3aebfd9 X-Archives-Hash: 0e2f3b31e0934f433bf14a2ded22166c --0kAGJ5Hb5f/LtdyK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22 Jan 2016 12:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:45:20 +0100 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply > > doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you forcing > > me to waste a time reporting a bug to no maintainer who could fix it? >=20 > sure, don't waste your time and just delete it so that nobody can track > why it was removed or even attempt to fix it. >=20 > > Because to me, the lack of any open bugs is a clear evidence that > > the package is not only unmaintained, but also unused. >=20 > lack of open bug means there is no known bug; anything else is pure > supposition this. if anything, it sounds like i need to keep open a trivial bug for a package to keep people from wrongly proactively tree cleaning. the # of users of a package is irrelevant. if there are (real i.e. not "typo in message" bugs) open, then that's a diff story. -mike --0kAGJ5Hb5f/LtdyK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWoqA6AAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBhoQQAImzVCg52ZOkbeQGoxQLc0g0 +rPjNO1r9DdjKzFXAJuzfMrErzZcbP4b9S7ed/QM50iH8jbx3DvBOTHX9K2nwoZR MgxaAQ5GGD89l9nKQ0pCZiCCcH6rrloh2sHyZbMFliKD2aZvkvwqRsukBafYw2cc mT3Yd4wZ5LSfbCmlv0aBDh03kq5DKwrlSDp7gER13KIiWIYuBcHa8HebQp0yw55v E92rbxOWSiid0gyBjnKO1OuqQUhzPrOPg/ugA3H2dLtOzkk/ElEh1sOun+djGCzg JFzmrrnjHpmfIqZCPuR3+OJkOGgJsmV/+Q/eC4dV9sGOFtanFMiARwYrd2ZVeODP /LZ2TxKgW3T0ZTMN2h38eLgFvsdktjDpFz+MykoLN8A7WgyUlnmtfOyQJz++3/Vf 0OCAPWlytQnBkbM0J4NBxlFzFSOmsdnOIW3T/xd/56cQ29rEGvfeJdRfFnVy+ZVb 6ajkLsJ/HRWSdmHWB1Rp1RTrthsVljH0KibdIj3wt12qnXsp3ER/nWcpHIzSQki6 PrEnTgCczz/Ry+p3sQc+BfsqtNeby20+rj00gm2SWDkPMGnBkISf1OSc7o+BDEgD AV5aue6GG3Qw1smr2p92TCg87uM/kvsgF+CL1z6nxr8filYkJlQBKqGfM5A1WU/v 3NkSkKjHowh11wb7q0hM =2xqx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0kAGJ5Hb5f/LtdyK--