Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last rites: net-nntp/inn

["Tomáš Chvátal" <scarabeus@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 12.1.2010 21:33, Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Monday 11 January 2010 22:43:18 Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:37 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote:
>>>> As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this.
>>>
>>> Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal.
>>>   It would be conspicuous in its absence.
>>>
>>> Would it make sense to post on -dev BEFORE masking packages like this?
>>> I'm sure there are lots of people who would chip in before something
>>> like this dies.
>>
>> (A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich)
>>
>> Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners:
>> The fact is, some of us have never heard of "inn" and until Gentoo has
>> some sort of "popularity tracking" software/tool, the treecleaners will
>> continue to mask unmaintained software. We can't possible know about every
>> package in the tree and if it looks like it is unmaintained (open bugs w/o
>> action) then we will mask it for removal unless someone fixes it and
>> maintains it.
> 
> you need to fix your filter then.  an "open bug" is not an acceptable reason 
> for masking a package.  if you're going to clean a package, you need to 
> research actual reasons to mask & punt.
> -mike
Dont be joking,
Your approach of adding new packages to main tree is that you add them
with empty metadata.xml and we have to remove them in few years because
they are steaming piles of bugs...

Lack of maintainer and open bugs are valid reasons.
And since WE want to enable as-needed as default at some time we need to
work on the bugs -> if packages have no maintainer and fails it we will
have to punt them (that bug was open for 2 years+, and clearly there
were even newer versions none bothered to bump to). If anyone picks them
up and fix in the mask for cleaning that's great, because that is the
reason for having that mask, so people can be loud about removal. We
could simply punt things at the moment we want without any notice if we
would not care about user responses for such actions.

Currently there are 109 reason [1] why as-needed cant be done, if the
package has maintainer he should work on it, otherwise byes, there are
quite large unmaintained areas in the tree we have to care about.

[1]
http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=182324,249450,226909,299077,247869,248195,248437,285747,280705,247931,297193,278310,207605,284921,247067,248586,277655,246755,277206,249295,248548,247043,248678,278423,247088,282426,247777,246729,246961,274385,278104,300515,248345,277169,248356,277227,248169,295199,247761,277769,247444,294396,247768,247844,276303,278069,276250,246726,257996,247731,247054,277925,276873,294971,278100,297025,248549,247779,276295,247712,260226,280922,248556,248163,248192,298152,274700,265643,257918,277938,287933,248143,248571,276928,226863,247991,226885,248152,248573,247044,296631,248351,248552,247748,226917,246875,248555,294738,277794,277050,246970,248159,248605,247919,276506,297409,277640,248357,294878,248579,132992,248577,248551,278086,276796,248411,299478,248580,276302

- --------
Tomáš Chvátal
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Overlays/QA/X11]
E-Mail          : scarabeus@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP        : 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587
GnuPG ID        : 03414587
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAktM4NAACgkQHB6c3gNBRYeCSQCfSWnP07SLw9sBLUENdN9ZAEYT
kcoAoLSM6ohZ3wzn47LdcEWDq8oTGQZk
=1n2p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----