From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I5Av3-00006k-Ht for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:41:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l621eePG030082; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:40:40 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l621chER027682 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:38:43 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A10B64EA3 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:38:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.708 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.708 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.708] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oRyiOHtUN0X7 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:38:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A446653C2 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:38:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I5As8-0005Zk-4k for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:38:36 +0200 Received: from static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca ([24.72.114.155]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:38:36 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:38:36 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Closing bugs on masked packages Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:38:26 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1183335128.26588.6.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: static24-72-114-155.yorkton.accesscomm.ca User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5pre (X11/20070629) In-Reply-To: <1183335128.26588.6.camel@localhost> Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: d53b24bc-0422-47c6-a680-863412959696 X-Archives-Hash: ec635f7042581cc20014a774f9269cbd Mart Raudsepp wrote: > I've been operating on the premise that I am the maintainer of the > package in question and marking it as WONTFIX and making it depend on > the removal bug while at it. I don't see what's wrong in that.. > If the removal gets reverted, all the depending bugs should be seen and > acted upon. Why should we keep bugs open in our maintainer bugs list if > we are 99% sure the package will get removed? We aren't treecleaners > project, but the maintainers of the packages whose bug we are marking > WONTFIX with the almost certain assumption the package will get removed > soon... Even if you are the maintainer, it's far from unheard of that when someone finds their favorite package has been masked they pop up and offer to take it off your hands. That's besides the point though. My mail was more concerning packages that don't have a dedicated maintainer caring for them. I should have been more clear about that. Anyways, the goal here is to keep bugs from getting lost. As long as there's some mechanism in place to prevent that from happening it shouldn't matter how its implemented. I don't really get why some ppl can't stand having open bugs, but hey. ;) -- dirtyepic salesman said this vacuum's guaranteed gentoo org it could suck an ancient virus from the sea 9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list