Dnia 7 czerwca 2016 16:16:38 CEST, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >On 07/06/16 05:18 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Robin H. Johnson <robb...@gentoo.org >> <mailto:robb...@gentoo.org>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 09:44:42AM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >>> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:23 PM, Michał Górny ><mgo...@gentoo.org <mailto:mgo...@gentoo.org>> wrote: >>> > > Your thoughts? >>> > I would agree that proxy-maint and GH pull requests are better >than >>> > sunrise, and so we should probably sunset (pun intended) the >latter. >>> The new method is better, but that doesn't cover what to do with >the >>> 500+ packages in sunrise. >>> >>> I have found them useful in the past, when I suddenly had a need >for >>> something, and there was an ebuild in sunrise that I could adopt >into >>> the tree. >> >> How about simply closing sunrise to new packages, and migrate them to >> elsewhere as resources permit? >> >> Just plugging the spigot and deprecating it would improve things. >> > >Isn't that effectively where we are already at though? If the last >push was a full year ago, we've pretty well got a closed-tree already. > I guess we just need to announce it..? > >As for what to do with the packages that exist already.... what about >adding a p.mask to the repo with a message along the lines of: > >"Sunrise has been masked for removal, if you care about this package >please ping its bug on bugs.gentoo.org so that we know it is a >priority for migration" > >..or similar?
Wouldn't removing it from repositories.xml have pretty much the same effect? Also, i think we should make the unreviewed repo public then, so people can get the newest ebuilds. -- Best regards, Michał Górny (by phone)
