[gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

[gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

[schism]

Why was a valid package removed for an errant comment in the ebuild?
It's not dead upstream, and someone (me) took the time to actually look
at it and note that the issue was at least mostly addressed, except for
the comment.

Then again, what's one more in my overlay of 54 packages, most of which
have had valid fixes posted for months, if not years?


--dc

----- Forwarded message from bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org -----

Subject: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues
Reply-To: DO NOT REPLY <devnull@localhost.invalid>
To: schism@subverted.org
From: bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:04:25 +0000 (UTC)

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person
whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit:

Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150091
Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150091


darkside@gentoo.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
           Keywords|PMASKED                     |
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
  Status Whiteboard|Pending removal 22. 5. 2010 |Pending removal: 2010-05-22




------- Comment #6 from darkside@gentoo.org  2010-06-12 20:04 0000 -------
removed from tree

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

----- End forwarded message -----

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

[Alec Warner]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 8:39 PM,  <schism@subverted.org> wrote:
> Why was a valid package removed for an errant comment in the ebuild?
> It's not dead upstream, and someone (me) took the time to actually look
> at it and note that the issue was at least mostly addressed, except for
> the comment.

I'm pretty sure the practices used by that ebuild are totally
inappropriate in gentoo-x86 (if they had used USE flags perhaps....)
Packages that have no active maintainer are removed by the
treecleaners all the time.  The entire point of treecleaners is to
either fix or remove dead packages from the tree.

>
> Then again, what's one more in my overlay of 54 packages, most of which
> have had valid fixes posted for months, if not years?

We don't have the staff to do one-off-fixes for all these packages.
They sit in maintainer-needed for months or years (as you stated
above.)  It becomes painfully obvious that they are not used enough to
be maintained to gentoo-x86 standards which is why they get removed.
I'd love to be able to say that treecleaners should never remove
anything from the tree and should patch everything.  However the team
is small and there are hundreds of unmaintained packages in the tree
so the team opts to remove packages that look too screwed up to keep.

As you have noted users are encouraged to keep said packages in a
personal overlay or sunrise[1].

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/index.xml#doc_chap7

>
>
> --dc
>
> ----- Forwarded message from bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org -----
>
> Subject: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues
> Reply-To: DO NOT REPLY <devnull@localhost.invalid>
> To: schism@subverted.org
> From: bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org
> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:04:25 +0000 (UTC)
>
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person
> whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit:
>
> Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150091
> Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150091
>
>
> darkside@gentoo.org changed:
>
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
>           Keywords|PMASKED                     |
>         Resolution|                            |FIXED
>  Status Whiteboard|Pending removal 22. 5. 2010 |Pending removal: 2010-05-22
>
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #6 from darkside@gentoo.org  2010-06-12 20:04 0000 -------
> removed from tree
>
> --
> Configure bugmail: https://bugs.gentoo.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

[Jeremy Olexa]

On 06/12/2010 10:39 PM, schism@subverted.org wrote:
> Why was a valid package removed for an errant comment in the ebuild?
> It's not dead upstream, and someone (me) took the time to actually look
> at it and note that the issue was at least mostly addressed, except for
> the comment.

Hi.

Most importantly, the package had no maintainer to help it along. So, we 
could leave it masked indefinitely (because no dev cared enough to 
improve the ebuild). Or, we could remove it. Cruft in the tree is not ok 
because it helps no one. =/ The package was masked since March, which 
gives more than enough time for another dev to pick it up but since no 
one did, it was treecleaned.

Feel free to write an ebuild for the pending version bump to 2.7.1 and 
then maybe one of the proxy maintainers will help you out for 
gentoo-x86. Also, there is the sunrise project where you can maintain it 
yourself: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/sunrise/

>
> Then again, what's one more in my overlay of 54 packages, most of which
> have had valid fixes posted for months, if not years?

Shortage of man power will do this, especially for maintainer-needed 
packages. It was not my intent to personally offend you regarding this 
package.

-Jeremy

>
>
> --dc
>
> ----- Forwarded message from bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org -----
>
> Subject: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues
> Reply-To: DO NOT REPLY<devnull@localhost.invalid>
> To: schism@subverted.org
> From: bugzilla-daemon@gentoo.org
> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:04:25 +0000 (UTC)
>
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. Also, do not reply via email to the person
> whose email is mentioned below. To comment on this bug, please visit:
>
> Clear-Text: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150091
> Secure: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150091
>
>
> darkside@gentoo.org changed:
>
>             What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>               Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
>             Keywords|PMASKED                     |
>           Resolution|                            |FIXED
>    Status Whiteboard|Pending removal 22. 5. 2010 |Pending removal: 2010-05-22
>
>
>
>
> ------- Comment #6 from darkside@gentoo.org  2010-06-12 20:04 0000 -------
> removed from tree
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

[schism]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:04:26PM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Shortage of man power will do this, especially for maintainer-needed 
> packages. It was not my intent to personally offend you regarding this 
> package.

I know no personal offense was intended, nor was any taken.  There
should be a bump, but it was just frustrating that the only issue that
seemed to remain was an innocuous comment within the ebuild.  If that
wasn't enough, it would've been nice to know what the objections were
before whacking it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] FW: [Bug 150091] app-forensics/samhain ebuild issues

[Markos Chandras]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 787 bytes --]

If you care enough about this package, move it to sunrise or step up and
proxy maintain it, cooperating with a developer

http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/sunrise/wiki/ProxyMaintainer

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:21 AM, <schism@subverted.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:04:26PM -0500, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> > Shortage of man power will do this, especially for maintainer-needed
> > packages. It was not my intent to personally offend you regarding this
> > package.
>
> I know no personal offense was intended, nor was any taken.  There
> should be a bump, but it was just frustrating that the only issue that
> seemed to remain was an innocuous comment within the ebuild.  If that
> wasn't enough, it would've been nice to know what the objections were
> before whacking it.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1195 bytes --]