On 18/04/06, foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > well the logical thing would be to go to bugzilla and search for "cccc" ... > > and guess what ? no more open bug reports > > I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an open bug > for it. So I guess you didn't actually go trough these proposed steps > yourself. Anyway, it is completely besides the point, because you or > anyone else won't check a week or a month from now if there's bug filed > against cccc, that is what maintenance is about.
Are you suggesting that all packages with long standing open bug reports should be removed? There are thousands that fit that description. If not, then what is your definition of "maintained"? It could be argued that since Mike fixed the cccc bug, it is maintained, even though he isn't the maintainer. Likewise, there are hundreds of packages that have a maintainer listed, or are assigned to a herd, where bug reports are essentially ignored. Should those also be removed? > > > I mean, you aren't the maintainer. And there is still the outstanding > > > issue that it is unmaintained in Gentoo, are you going to fix that or > > > not ? Otherwise it should be masked and removed. > > > > this is the same argument as already made and rejected ... > > Where was this rejected and by whom ? By you I guess ? That just doesn't > cut it, errors made in the past are no reason to make them again in the > future. Did you read the previous discussion link I provided? The argument has been rejected in the past because it would lead to hundreds of otherwise working packages being removed. > > feel free to mask > > and remove the hundreds of other packages that have no maintainer > > So now we do have your blessing ? cccc is then up for removal as of this > moment. Maybe you aren't a native English speaker; it was clear from Mike's post that he would rather you didn't go ahead with removing hundreds of packages. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
