[gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

[gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

[Alon Bar-Lev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream
does not cooperate (Bug#630420).
Removal in 30 days.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 162 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

[R0b0t1]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream
> does not cooperate (Bug#630420).
> Removal in 30 days.
>

I don't have any reason to disagree with this but I expected a
citation for those things to be in the bug you referenced. They're
not, and I don't see any bugs on the tracker.

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On 8 September 2017 at 22:44, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream
> > does not cooperate (Bug#630420).
> > Removal in 30 days.
> >
>
> I don't have any reason to disagree with this but I expected a
> citation for those things to be in the bug you referenced. They're
> not, and I don't see any bugs on the tracker.

The effort of upgrade per each version is becoming greater.
Previous and next versions required significant work, issues reported
to upstream with the hope of a change, but most is rejected.
The build system is so complex that is specific to gcc/ld and
hard-coded dependencies locations and cflags/ldflags magic.
Unless we have a very good reason (important dependency), my
suggestion is to drop it.
Do we have such a reason?

Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-libs/cryptlib masked for removal in 30 days

[R0b0t1]

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 8 September 2017 at 22:44, R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > Complex build system, hard to maintain, no dependencies in tree, upstream
>> > does not cooperate (Bug#630420).
>> > Removal in 30 days.
>> >
>>
>> I don't have any reason to disagree with this but I expected a
>> citation for those things to be in the bug you referenced. They're
>> not, and I don't see any bugs on the tracker.
>
> The effort of upgrade per each version is becoming greater.
> Previous and next versions required significant work, issues reported
> to upstream with the hope of a change, but most is rejected.
> The build system is so complex that is specific to gcc/ld and
> hard-coded dependencies locations and cflags/ldflags magic.
> Unless we have a very good reason (important dependency), my
> suggestion is to drop it.
> Do we have such a reason?
>

I don't think so. That is a very good description of a valid reason.