* Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
2020-08-03 22:23 ` Peter Stuge
@ 2020-08-03 23:27 ` Jimi Huotari
2020-08-05 9:22 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2020-08-04 2:29 ` Michał Górny
2020-08-05 9:01 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jimi Huotari @ 2020-08-03 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
2020-08-03 22:23 ` Peter Stuge
2020-08-03 23:27 ` Jimi Huotari
@ 2020-08-04 2:29 ` Michał Górny
2020-08-05 9:01 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2020-08-04 2:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
2020-08-03 22:23 ` Peter Stuge
2020-08-03 23:27 ` Jimi Huotari
2020-08-04 2:29 ` Michał Górny
@ 2020-08-05 9:01 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Sturmlechner @ 2020-08-05 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread