From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RD1sk-0003Cz-Dn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:30:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6281721C034; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:29:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722CD21C01F for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2B61B401A for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:29:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.693 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.906, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 a6rkzOL5yCjv for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456FD1B4009 for ; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RD1re-0001XW-KF for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:28:58 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:28:58 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 00:28:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <4E900E3E.2070202@gentoo.org> <4E905C48.20008@gentoo.org> <20111008151336.GN704@gentoo.org> <4E91CDE7.8060201@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 8e43cc5 branch-master) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 7a9c42ab39a7a9ee33e26b959b896926 Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:3= 7:59 +0200 as excerpted: > Duncan schrieb: >> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day >> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on a= s >> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) >> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =3D:^) >=20 > Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules > without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy > too. >=20 > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect > existing maintainers: > Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on > things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. You are correct, but AFAIK, that's one function of tree-cleaners (whether= =20 or not the remover is actually on the tree-cleaner team), when packages=20 are broken due to going stale against current, and the bugs reporting the= =20 problem remain open for months without (visible) movement (there's some=20 movement here, yes, but was it visible?). That's actually why the 30-day mask is so important and it's so=20 distressing to see people trying to cut it short. Masking has a way of=20 waking people (maintainers and others) up if they actually use the=20 package, and gives a chance for reprieve. But if that 30-day-mask time is cut short, it really does throw a wrench=20 into things due to interactions with "p-space" (physical-space), like=20 vacations, etc, especially considering that Gentoo is volunteers. Coming= =20 back from a vacation to see that one's package has been removed and the=20 30-day-mask-time cut short so it all happened while one was on (2-week)=20 vacation is a rude thing indeed to have happen, and maintainers *should*=20 be complaining! I'd be raising holy cow! (... tho with council and on=20 -core as appropriate, the making of the sausage wouldn't /all/ have to be= =20 in the open!) So, please, at LEAST honor the 30-day-in-mask bit. And if someone steps=20 up to rescue during that time, let's give them some time to do so. One=20 can /hope/ both sides will be reasonable here and if something's removed=20 in an untimely manner, or even at the end of the 30 days if the timing=20 simply worked out badly and the person couldn't get to it until day 31 or= =20 35, it can be returned but kept in a masked state for another month or=20 two, if necessary, without having to further nail down in written policy=20 that end of things, but right now, we're not even getting to that point. = =20 Let's at least let the established policy work the way it was intended,=20 giving someone time to step up and do the rescue. Meanwhile, once the package is masked, don't let it hold up the normal=20 update process with other packages. (Tho ideally there's cooperation in=20 this aspect as well, but again, we're not even getting to the point where= =20 that's an issue. Right now, existing written policies are being violated= =20 for questionable-at-best reasons; obviously if something's discovered to=20 have been back-doored or the like, that would be rather beyond=20 "questionable-at-best"! But of course that'd be security not "just" tree-cleaners/qa.) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman