From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A8C58973 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:11:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1FBF21C029; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:10:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCEEE21C020 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 23:10:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ik10so134997226igb.1 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:10:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=0jDXBpm5lBjszHAPAq/Pw/LMd8vD7KJq89SgSKYDQgU=; b=NV6Q+JHj7gWmx+ilgnrL7VpclCQL7eM2g18Y1xhMJpZp/BnznLJot+CUy+03aX2ezw P7ZaDRBRZttq5WbXyEwfcbE5u/PG+JGHvmdS/byOKxpNBnuZEF7KCWcfeY/Ijzwconm+ wSqdexjpCJLq9vQtmR/+nlX+QrF3W+wfbL0/063jd1uK1buPKrvmXZT26MpU8WVIzsk2 /bLVrsIYaocTSeUYicvjbzO8Kijn8I7s0RaomO3cIH0wwfFJ1ssaXEVLGIbdJ0wpHPkl gCU6jXYWoa/AZJJcZLOlsn+Wl3ye2xB41VDIRI75bu18qcWAxl84QTGppjjgKqGnhw+u Q7cA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0jDXBpm5lBjszHAPAq/Pw/LMd8vD7KJq89SgSKYDQgU=; b=me7vzvkdwDnGHE5VLWARezW8xX31v5CqjcM7+Dum+USMTydToGSJrukDELXxqS4Yip DQaxn1IdGRkbL5CJQukvDwG5l0PElRrBaJY/PwstmdkuvljMF5PXwEu8YFPrfmk/E2DC G7KbAAeiotYf1/gTvYrK5UEYQvSQP/D2oq4AXF85bdbtYDokag2yrkuzNO18PU6aqNPb iI08pnfDs9FoyrOdbfmcMwa7u6+BJH839IsFQ7RvgIN3sWmxvV7EbClHONRpL4fn5CDK GwePJYYM9Gn7xgS3Xff9VTSvVpff1yGQntK9gTWNzcqVO7G6gRhkBMjWFo5CrW0wtW+f XzYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOT16Q4V6O4/D+pKoiDhUU9xV/JpbqMcIApwedof7a4Un2/bXEyF6iyMZd768MNLTpkgI6Oq29PVqa7gCg== 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.60.73 with SMTP id f9mr206190igr.97.1453417851037; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:10:51 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.225.233 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:10:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160121224142.GA16048@waltdnes.org> References: <20160121165358.GA18561@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20160121184520.6d472d7a.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160121224142.GA16048@waltdnes.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:10:50 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: t-jIFjQrFflwX18gbElrEOlpM6k Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 9e65ca3c-deb3-456b-94d7-1d0fc1177da2 X-Archives-Hash: d589e4b95719256043dd5aa9a7fa7728 On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM, wrote: > I think you misunderstood Roy. He was speaking about "unmaintained > but perfectly functional software". You're talking about "a package > that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply doesn't work, could not > have worked for past 3 years". Between those 2 extremes will be many > cases of doesn't-work-for-me/works-for-me. Who'll be the final arbiter? > I don't think we need any kind of formalized policy. The treecleaners can make a decision and there doesn't need to be any appeals. The treecleaners should remove packages that are both unmaintained and broken. They don't have to have bugs open, and simply having a bug open for a long time shouldn't be a reason to treeclean on its own. If a package has a security issue or is just generally crippled then it should be removed. That might sound a bit subjective, but I don't think that is a problem - if the treecleaners want to make a statement of policy they can do so. And if somebody disagrees with the treecleaners then they can go ahead and volunteer to maintain the package. Maintainers aren't actually obligated to fix non-security bugs at all, by the way (though doing so would certainly be nice). But, they'll get to listen to all the grief about problems they cause instead of the treecleaners. Obviously if things get out of hand there are ways to escalate. In any case, I consider the labeling of these unmaintained packages as maintainer-needed as a good thing, even if some get treecleaned as a result. Part of our social contract is not hiding problems. Unmaintained packages should be clearly labeled as such. And I'm all for some suggestions that have been offered to hghlight packages they use which are unmaintained (I'd suggest that instead of messing with eclasses we simply put that feature in portage though). -- Rich