From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GH4UK-0003Yd-Gc for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:10:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k7QK9U2W019701; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:09:30 GMT Received: from rs25s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (rs25s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net [200.44.33.106]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7QK7bTq000214 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:07:38 GMT Received: from localhost ([190.37.152.50]) by rs25s12.datacenter.cha.cantv.net (8.13.4/8.13.0/3.0) with ESMTP id k7QK7aFq009661 for ; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:07:36 -0400 X-Matched-Lists: [] Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GH4RN-0004Ot-Fw for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:07:38 -0400 Message-ID: <44F0AA08.5010903@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 16:07:36 -0400 From: Luis Francisco Araujo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060818) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Xmms needs to die. References: <1156365020.13743.15.camel@darksytem> <44EDF422.3050000@gentoo.org> <200608261704.11232.pauldv@gentoo.org> <44F07E21.3020109@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <44F07E21.3020109@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on 10.128.0.211 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Archives-Salt: 6b22d351-5ec6-4e7c-a90f-7229938209a2 X-Archives-Hash: d451b36a54241cb328302b22b0770ae8 Alec Warner wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: >> On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:46, Alec Warner wrote: >>> Robert Cernansky wrote: >>>> What bothers me also, is that it has not plugin design like >>>> xmms. Support for plugins is very good because lot of people can write >>>> plugins for lot of things. This is why people do not want to switch >>>> from xmms because thanks to plugins it have so many features that >>>> currently no player is able to overcome it. >>> So port the plugins from xmms to $NEW_CLIENT, since xmms is an old piece >>> of crap. >> Who cares. It works (mostly), it is lightweight, and there are enough people >> using it to keep it in the tree. As long as things don't break beyond repair >> I see no reason whatsoever to remove xmms (or any other largely unmaintained >> package in the tree). >> >> Paul >> > > This is one of those things (along with qa and security) that the > community needs to decide. Does stuff that works but has terrible qa > stay in the tree? Does security stuff stay in the tree, but masked? > Should xmms be masked? We have no real way of "deprecating" a package, > aside from leaving it in the tree with a masking reason saying > "deprecated and unsupported." at which point not everything in the tree > becomes supported. > > The Treecleaner project that I run is based on the assumption that > broken stuff in the tree is bad, and I try to remove the really old stuf > broken stuff first. However I aspire to eventually "catch up" and get > to the currently broken packages. So which way will you have it? Or is > this more of a pragmatic stance on the tree? Broken stuff but still maintained upstream, mask it. Broken stuff and unmaintained upstream , send it to the overlay (probably with a note warning about it on the ebuild?). I would opt for that. So, about the xmms ebuild, i agree with sending it to the overlay. -- Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list