[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[Jimi Huotari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

# Jimi Huotari <chiitoo@gentoo.org> (2020-08-04)
# No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
# Removal in 30 days.
dev-libs/liboobs

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[Peter Stuge]

Jimi Huotari wrote:
> # Jimi Huotari <chiitoo@gentoo.org> (2020-08-04)
> # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> # Removal in 30 days.
> dev-libs/liboobs

Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\

Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem?
(Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[Jimi Huotari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 988 bytes --]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:23:44 +0000
Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:

> Jimi Huotari wrote:
> > # Jimi Huotari <chiitoo@gentoo.org> (2020-08-04)
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> > # Removal in 30 days.
> > dev-libs/liboobs  
> 
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
> 
> Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem?
> (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it.
> 
> 
> //Peter
> 

I'd certainly be fine with this, and 'app-admin/system-tools-backends',
which is next on my list to go, to be assigned to maintainer-wanted
instead of being removed.

I've sort of inherited these, but have no use for them, and nothing else
depends on them.

The mask is not live yet, so any advice how to move along will be appreciated.  :]

See also:

- https://bugs.gentoo.org/542846
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/667654
- https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/16989

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 22:23 +0000, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Jimi Huotari wrote:
> > # Jimi Huotari <chiitoo@gentoo.org> (2020-08-04)
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> > # Removal in 30 days.
> > dev-libs/liboobs
> 
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
> 
> Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem?
> (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it.
> 

Yes, having 1953 unmaintained packages is great PR for Gentoo.  Wait, it
will be 1954 now.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[Andreas Sturmlechner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 00:23:44 CEST Peter Stuge wrote:
> Jimi Huotari wrote:
> > # Jimi Huotari <chiitoo@gentoo.org> (2020-08-04)
> > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use.
> > # Removal in 30 days.
> > dev-libs/liboobs
> 
> Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\
> 
> Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem?
> (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it.

If you know a reason to keep it, please mention it.

Otherwise, a non-high-profile library that had no consumers in 2015 has no 
business of staying in tree in 2020.

I rather have the current maintainer, fully aware of its redundancy, send 
those last-rites instead of effectively asking a poor random dev in the future 
to completely unnecessarily waste time on maintenance or do the necessary 
research before removing it.

Regards

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs

[Andreas Sturmlechner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 327 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 01:27:17 CEST Jimi Huotari wrote:
> I'd certainly be fine with this, and 'app-admin/system-tools-backends',
> which is next on my list to go, to be assigned to maintainer-wanted
> instead of being removed.

Looking at the linked bug, the package was doomed in 2016, last-rites is 
inevitable.

Regards

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]