Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

"Eddie Chapman" <eddie@ehuk.net> writes:

> Sam James wrote:
>>
>> "Eddie Chapman" <eddie@ehuk.net> writes:
>>>>> So what's the situation with the current Gentoo maintainers? Have
>>>>> they disappeared? I often see on here packages being offered up for
>>>>> grabs. Why
>>>>> hasn't there been a call to give others the opportunity to volunteer
>>>>> as maintainers rather than going straight to last riting the package?
>>>>> Or
>>>>> has that happened and I've missed it, in which case I apologise.
>>>>
>>>> There was a year ago or so and nothing really came out of it. But see
>>>>  above wrt 'tags'.
>>>
>>> A year is a long time, there might well now be people willing to take
>>> over maintaining it that were not willing to 1 year ago, if that is what
>>> is required.
>>
>> They have a month to step up anyway, although that will involve
>> upstream activity too.
>
> I see there was already a change in the tree yesterday that assumes
> sys-fs/eudev is going (commit d46677fd864b30315423c8364ca44db2de98e2a1,
> sys-fs/mdadm/mdadm-4.2-r2, amd64 stable keyworded). Has this actually been
> decided behind the scenes already? This starts to smell a little ugly
> unless I've completely misunderstood something. I hope I'm wrong.

I think someone just didn't want to bother waiting to clean it up there
given it's unlikely anyone will bother taking it over. It's not exactly
something which can't be undone.

>
> One thing I don't understand: the Gentoo project page for eudev lists 4
> members including the lead, and FWICT they are mostly still active in
> other areas of Gentoo (recent commits to the tree in other packages). The
> project lead is also an original author of eudev.

blueness being the same person who wrote the news item last year saying it's dead and
it no longer serves a purpose.

> I find it hard to
> believe that all 4 of these people have completely lost interest in eudev
> in Gentoo. Have any of these 4 maintainers publicly said (anywhere) that
> they are not interested in being maintainers anymore (which is fine if
> that is the case)?  We're not talking here about a lone maintainer of some
> peripheral package that's disappeared leaving an orphaned package.
>

That happened really with the discussion w/ blueness et. al when it was
last-rited (or before it was last-rited) originally.