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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-18463-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1GexZH-0002cO-Fr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:38:31 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9VHaQZj004164; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:36:26 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9VHUZI1002745 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:30:35 GMT Received: from [35.11.158.112] (warnera6-2.user.msu.edu [35.11.158.112]) (authenticated bits=0) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k9VHUZ7s011242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:30:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45478830.7070404@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:30:24 -0500 From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909) Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> 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] Only you can prevent broken portage trees References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610291940390.17995@stargazer.weeve.org> <20061030082829.GA20216@curie-int.orbis-terrarum.net> <20061030135853.6a1041d5@snowdrop.home> <45464E04.2000004@gentoo.org> <20061030193155.39fa65be@snowdrop.home> <4546576E.7000305@gentoo.org> <20061030202109.785c5aa3@snowdrop.home> <454664A9.3040902@gentoo.org> <20061030205357.68e332b0@snowdrop.home> <45466FA6.7070102@gentoo.org> <20061030224021.33ae9ca0@snowdrop.home> <454761E0.7080105@gentoo.org> <45478081.4020203@gentoo.org> <20061031171112.6a3be901@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20061031171112.6a3be901@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2e3a1d6b-94be-4ec4-a20f-941ea5508bfa X-Archives-Hash: 6bded72b4e9a58695f6faff81b50c246 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> > wrote: > | I picked a random e-mail to reply to. I don't maintain that many > | packages (maybe 10 or so?). But if I have a bug (particularly a sec > | bug as in this case) and you haven't stablized it after five months > | then I'll probably just nuke the ebuild and drop your keywords > > Which is dumb. There's no harm to be had in just leaving the ebuild > there. > I'm just trying to make my life as an ebuild maintainer easier. This means some individuals may file bugs against an old crusty version of a package that I maintain because $arch hasn't keyworded a newer version yet. Then I have to tell the user that they are using a crusty old version and to use a newer one. Double bonus if they are actually using said $arch and need to keyword the newer version themselves. I'll admit I've never had to drop keywords on anything thus far; I'm merely stating what I would do in such a situation. Your point prior was that you weren't asking maintainers to maintain anything extra, but to leave the old ebuilds in place for the given $arches. The small issue is that ebuilds in place imply maintainership; even if it's just to tell the user to use a newer version. On the topic of old ebuilds; situations may arise where a particular maintainer is trying to clean out a version of a package but finds that $arch doesn't have anything newer stable and thus can't do any sort of cleanup for fear of breaking $arch. You will probably again state that maintainer should just leave the older versions around. I will state that at least as a maintainer I'm willing to do so for only a limited period of time. Otherwise it becomes an annoyance when trying to clean up after packages to have ebuilds from three or four minor versions ago lying around. So we disagree on this point. Thats ok too I think ;) -Alec Warner antarus@gentoo.org -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list