Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

[Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2298 bytes --]

Hi,

On 2019-12-06 09:11, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> I don't think anyone can have a valid problem with package.mask of some
> of the things mentioned (sabnzbd, abcde, etc), because they were indeed
> maintainer-needed or sound@ (which David is part of, and is known
> crickets territory) or whatnot.

I agree with your mail in general but I don't understand this part:

Since when is it acceptable for anyone to remove packages (the
package.mask entry clearly says that this package is scheduled for
removal and suspecting that any *user* will step and contact p-m for
example is naive) without any need?

Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will
start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked
closely on any other package from that list) there isn't anything
blocking and it's a working piece of software. The only thing which
stands out is: It's a Py2-only package.

I am also curious about the maintainer-needed aspect: I understand that
Python project doesn't *want* and is also *unable* to maintain all
packages dumped to their project just because like everything in Gentoo,
the project is understaffed for the amount of work. But what's the
solution here? The message everyone saying this is acceptable sends out
can be summarized as: In future, when you see a package which you are
just using will lose its maintainer, take it before anyone decides 'I
have not *any* reason and there is no need but I'll remove it just
because I can'. Face it, no single maintainer can keep up with
maintaining 30+ packages in good quality. So there's a high chance that
package will rot the same way like they are already rotting in former
herds (projects).

Therefore I appreciate packages *without* set maintainer. Because these
packages are sending an important signal: Because they are
maintainer-needed, it's OK for anyone to touch them. Assuming we still
have the rule "If you touch it and it will break, you have to fix it"
that's at least something which *can* work because we still have no
system to declare "Yes, I am the maintainer of this package but I am
fine with you touching it".


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]