On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 19:04 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 18:59 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > 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 > > Oh, I've listed pkgcheck there because it's the only tool > implementing > the file at the moment. I'm happy to replace it with larger list or > something more generic once there are other tools. However, I > believe > that saying 'pkgcheck' right now has the advantage that devs know > which > tool to use to see the result.
IMHO maintaining such a list is better suited for devmanual or wiki; just like skel.ebuild could be improved by removing portage references and refer to PMS > > pkgcheck is mostly used by your CI checks for > > producing huge reports, which is nice but addresses a different > > problem > > There is nothing stopping you from running pkgcheck locally. In > fact, > it should work out of the box these days. If you have any problems, > please report them and I'm sure they will be addressed promptly. Sure I did that to get reports like what CI does for me now but that's always been a different usecase; I wasn't aware pkgcheck had the equivalent of repoman commit > > i could see this file being useful for auto-generating lists on qa- > > reports like for eapis too > > I don't think there's really a point in duplicating this. For now certainly not. Once someone wants to wipe a deprecated package this could come in handy instead of searching a huge html page, but sure this could be fixed the other way by having this in the per-check reports like what is on the left side of the current CI reports
