From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 080AD15800A for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:57:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1D49E0918; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73717E07B3 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 09:57:03 +0000 (UTC) References: <9626e2f9-5f57-e061-b3ba-1c1fa95cb868@gentoo.org> <87sf9m9ta5.fsf@gentoo.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.4; emacs 29.0.92 From: Sam James To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: obsolete acct-* packages Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 10:56:43 +0100 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <874jm1pmok.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 73ecee61-7226-4d67-8cd8-bf53c33be4c5 X-Archives-Hash: 5c8bfae1adbfdbd61802bbd3cfb3c87f --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike Gilbert writes: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27=E2=80=AFPM Sam James wrote: >> > Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a >> > policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages? >> >> Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping >> the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there >> seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong >> to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces >> the "don't keep them" path. > > The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy > were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now. > > Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to m= e. Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is customar= y. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZLZh618UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZCa7AEAkksOqEfRQCLuwccjbUZeFNSnO8QiDOIPqf6m TbWbHEkA/2efAEDYi2vjwZie+LPZExBJhzlfQwcoB4tqHlXzi8sO =xvFw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--