Fwd: Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

Fwd: Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

[Anthony G. Basile]

Okay,  I'll set the metadata.xml for both net-p2p/litecoin* and
sys-process/nmon to the following:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE pkgmetadata SYSTEM "http://www.gentoo.org/dtd/metadata.dtd">
<pkgmetadata>
	<maintainer type="person">
		<email>marc.popp@sunny-computing.de</email>
		<name>Marc Popp</name>
		<description>Maintainer. Assign bugs to him</description>
	</maintainer>
	<maintainer type="project">
		<email>proxy-maint@gentoo.org</email>
		<name>Proxy Maintainers</name>
	</maintainer>
</pkgmetadata>


Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed.  These forks are
not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to
p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I
remove them from the tree in 30 days.

I haven't acted yet, so there's still time to bikeshed ;)


On 7/8/16 4:32 AM, Marc Popp wrote:
> Hi Anthony,
> 
> I would take over the litecoin* packages, but my last (and first) request
> to take over nmon was not even approved it answered yet. I guess, I wasn't
> following the right process.
> 
> Thanks
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, 8 July 2016, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin
>> forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them.  I didn't get any
>> feedback so as of tomorrow I'll be masking the following for removal in
>> 30 days.
>>
>> net-dns/namecoind
>> net-dns/namecoin-qt
>>
>> net-p2p/bitcoinxtd
>> net-p2p/bitcoinxt-qt
>>
>> net-p2p/litecoind
>> net-p2p/litecoin-qt
>>
>> net-p2p/ppcoind
>> net-p2p/ppcoin-qt
>>
>> net-p2p/primecoind
>> net-p2p/primecoin-qt
>>
>> --
>> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
>> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
>> E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org <javascript:;>
>> GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
>> GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
> should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed.  These forks are
> not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to
> p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I
> remove them from the tree in 30 days.
>

IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not.  Not whether
upstream is more or less active.

If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them.  However,
if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in
the repo, then they should probably stay.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
> > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed.  These forks are
> > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to
> > p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I
> > remove them from the tree in 30 days.
> >
> 
> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not.  Not whether
> upstream is more or less active.
> 
> If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them.  However,
> if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in
> the repo, then they should probably stay.
 
+1

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 7/8/16 10:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages
>> should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed.  These forks are
>> not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to
>> p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I
>> remove them from the tree in 30 days.
>>
> 
> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not.  Not whether
> upstream is more or less active.

There is a QA against the current version of namecoin* and upstreams
newest packages are no good.

> 
> If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them.  However,
> if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in
> the repo, then they should probably stay.
> 

I have no strong feeling here, but I do want to get rid of them.  So I'm
okay with maintainer-needed@  I'll let the discussion continue for a bit
and then do whatever the consensus is.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA