[gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 375 bytes --]

I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it.

If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal?

Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures.  I was under the
impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before their
obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out.

And if that's not the case, should it be?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 482 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[Michael Mol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 07:29:35 PM Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it.
> 
> If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal?
> 
> Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures.  I was under the
> impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before their
> obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out.
> 
> And if that's not the case, should it be?

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 

has a bug noting why bopm is being removed. It was mentioned in there that 
hopm isn't in tree, sure. It's also mentioned that bopm's default configuration 
doesn't really do anything, as it depends on a service that was shuttered back 
in 2013. (If I read the bug report correctly.)

However, note that in that bug, bopm is listed has not having a maintainer in 
Gentoo...no dev (or volunteer) is maintaining it. Without a maintainer, 
there's nobody with access who's motivated to add hopm.

If you'd like to see hopm in the tree, you care more about it than any of the 
current devs. Which means you should probably look at 
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers and see about becoming 
a proxy maintainer for it.

-- 
:wq

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]

On 08/25/2016 07:29 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it.
> 
> If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal?
> 
> Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures.  I was under
> the impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before
> their obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out.
> 
> And if that's not the case, should it be?
That's a good question, best answered by the developer who chose to have
the package removed.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[P Levine]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 952 bytes --]

From the dev mailing list:

# Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> (21 Aug 2016)
# Dead for a long time in favour of hopm, bug #473754.
# Removal in a month.
net-misc/bopm

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 08/25/2016 07:29 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it.
> >
> > If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal?
> >
> > Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures.  I was under
> > the impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before
> > their obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out.
> >
> > And if that's not the case, should it be?
> That's a good question, best answered by the developer who chose to have
> the package removed.
>
> --
> Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
> OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
> fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2014 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1826 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 07:29:35 PM Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it.
> >
> > If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal?
> >
> > Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures.  I was under
> the
> > impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before their
> > obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out.
> >
> > And if that's not the case, should it be?
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473754
>
> has a bug noting why bopm is being removed. It was mentioned in there that
> hopm isn't in tree, sure. It's also mentioned that bopm's default
> configuration
> doesn't really do anything, as it depends on a service that was shuttered
> back
> in 2013. (If I read the bug report correctly.)
>

Interestingly I'm the one who filed that bug and also mentioned that its
replacement wasn't in tree yet.

However, note that in that bug, bopm is listed has not having a maintainer
> in
> Gentoo...no dev (or volunteer) is maintaining it. Without a maintainer,
> there's nobody with access who's motivated to add hopm.
>
> If you'd like to see hopm in the tree, you care more about it than any of
> the
> current devs. Which means you should probably look at
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers and see about
> becoming
> a proxy maintainer for it.
>

I've already done that for bopm, and thanks to Soap I was able to fix a
buttload of problems with the old ebuild while I was at it.

I think considering that bopm is still in active use in general (I've seen
at least two other popular IRC networks using it), I'll just keep
maintaining it until it breaks...or at least until hopm is in tree.


> --
> :wq

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2904 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] removal of bopm before hopm is in tree

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 94 bytes --]

Also of note is that the bopm confug uses blacklists other than njabl which
are still active.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 119 bytes --]