Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: obsolete acct-* packages

[Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2306 bytes --]

On 18/07/2023 11.56, Sam James wrote:
> 
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
>>>> policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?
>>>
>>> Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
>>> the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
>>> seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
>>> to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
>>> the "don't keep them" path.
>>
>> The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
>> were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.
>>
>> Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me.
> 
> Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is customary.

I am sorry, but it seems that I have to clarify something.

First, I have "pinged someone."

As of writing this, I was the last to comment on the QA bug about five 
months ago, asking why we would want to keep unused acct-* packages [1]. 
Since then, this has not been answered, and there have been zero other 
replies. That signaled me that there was no interest in pursuing the 
matter further. In addition, we have already removed acct-* packages in 
the past.

Secondly, nobody immediately forces anything.

The removal date for the acct-* packages is one month from now. One 
month is hopefully enough time to decide whether we want such a policy.


Sam, I am afraid, but I believe that the situation is different from how 
you frame it.


The proponents of keeping obsolete acct-* packages have the inventive to 
establish their preferred policy.

Accusing me of not facilitating a QA bug that deals with establishing a 
policy I do not favor seems unfair.

Do you think that a QA bug that has not seen progress in nearly five 
months should be able to establish an illegitimate shadow policy?

Currently, acct-* packages are governed by our current policy regarding 
package removal. If we decide to change this, we can also revert the 
acct-* package removals.

- Flow


1: https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881#c7


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17273 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]