foser wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:56 +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote:
If no one has an objection, I'll pick up that package, I think it is fun, never
tought I'd use it, but I have so much code written I'd like how much I have
really done.
If there is no objection I'll make the update need
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:56 +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote:
> If no one has an objection, I'll pick up that package, I think it is fun,
> never
> tought I'd use it, but I have so much code written I'd like how much I have
> really done.
>
> If there is no objection I'll make the update needed,
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:53 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> dont know what policy you're referring to seeing as how we dont have any
> concerning unmaintained packages
Still hiding... c'mon you are better than this.
> sure, for new packages ... isnt a new package
The policy concerning metad
foser wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
either you have a policy of cutting unmaintained packages or you dont ... you
cant have some vague middle ground
Hide behind policy if you can't do it with common sense. The policy is
to add valid metadata.xml data to pack
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 10:41, foser wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > either you have a policy of cutting unmaintained packages or you dont ...
> > you cant have some vague middle ground
>
> Hide behind policy if you can't do it with common sense.
dont know wh
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> either you have a policy of cutting unmaintained packages or you dont ... you
> cant have some vague middle ground
Hide behind policy if you can't do it with common sense. The policy is
to add valid metadata.xml data to packages that do n
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 09:51, foser wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I don't know how this relat
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 07:00, foser 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 ""
> > ... and guess what ? no more open bug reports
>
> I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an o
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> 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 fixe
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 "" ...
> > and guess what ? no more open bug reports
>
> I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an
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 "" ...
> 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 tro
On Sunday 16 April 2006 11:17, foser wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 14:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > and it helps no one to go around cutting packages that have no
> > outstanding issues with them
>
> Sure it helps keep Gentoo clean and up-to-date, the load of packages
> that are outdated are
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 14:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> and it helps no one to go around cutting packages that have no outstanding
> issues with them
Sure it helps keep Gentoo clean and up-to-date, the load of packages
that are outdated are often unmaintained as well. The one leads to the
othe
On Saturday 15 April 2006 12:07, Mark Loeser wrote:
> I agree. There is a lot of stuff that suffers from being unmaintained,
> and I think we should strive towards cleaning that up. It helps no one
> if there isn't anyone to claim responsibility for the package when there
> is a problem.
and it
On 15/04/06, Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I still say it should be removed in 30 days.
>
> I agree. There is a lot of stuff that suffers from being unmaintained,
> and I think we should strive towards cleaning that up. It helps no one
> if there isn
foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > -3.1.4 now in portage
>
> Why did you add that, without adding metadata ? That is just wrong.
>
> It is better to remove it if there is no maintainer, you upping it
> without adding yourself as main
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> -3.1.4 now in portage
Why did you add that, without adding metadata ? That is just wrong.
It is better to remove it if there is no maintainer, you upping it
without adding yourself as maintainer is no form of maintenance. This is
exac
-3.1.4 now in portage
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
dev-util/ is not depended on by any other applications, the stable
version does not compile, and while upstream has newer releases which most
likely work...there is no Gentoo maintainer (bug #128109). If no one steps
up to maintain it in 30 days, I will be removing it.
--
Mark Loeser - G
19 matches
Mail list logo
