On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:39 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:36 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 17:09 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > > > +################################################################ > > > #### > > > +# > > > +# This file specifies packages that are considered deprecated > > > (but > > > not > > > +# masked yet). It will trigger pkgcheck warnings whenever other > > > +# packages depend on them. > > > > > > > repoman would be more useful for this > > > > Then feel free to take repoman over, and start maintaining it. I've > lost interest in contributing to the project after the last pointless > refactoring made adding anything even more effort, and it doesn't > seem > that anyone else has. > > Given that pkgcheck is a. faster by design, b. running checks > in parallel, c. has sane API making contributing a pleasure, I don't > really see a point in putting any more effort to support a dead > repoman. >
it's not about who's maintaining what here... just s/pkgcheck/QA tools/ and be done with it unless i missed something, repoman is still the standard for pre-commit checks and raising everyone's attention on potential improvements/issues; pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different problem i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa- reports like for eapis too as for your current views on repoman vs pkgcheck, i have nothing against stopping using repoman and switching to pkgcheck, but AFAIK this has yet to happen at a policy level
