Re: [gentoo-dev] Unmasking modular X

[Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 964 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed,
> | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just
> | institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a
> | virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if
> | necessary.
> 
> Much more sensible.

I've thought some about this. It would be acceptable to me for
virtual/x11 to provide modular X deps, if we also instituted a repoman
death upon any attempt to commit to a directory for which the best
visible package is broken.

This will accomplish the goal of discovering completely unmaintained
packages but will fail in the goal of discovering which packages nobody
uses. They'll still continue to rot in the tree, unmaintained, unused
and taking up space in everybody's syncs.

How's that sound?

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]