On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "AW" == Alec Warner writes:
>
> AW> If folks do not want to maintain it anymore, then it will be removed.
>
> That is about as harmful an attitude as possible.
>
> If you don't personally care about a package just leave it alone!
The poi
> "AW" == Alec Warner writes:
AW> If folks do not want to maintain it anymore, then it will be removed.
That is about as harmful an attitude as possible.
If you don't personally care about a package just leave it alone!
And if you want more maintainers, then drop the schoolkid nonsense to
130201 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> The actual reason for removal is the following:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298
> I'm perfectly fine with masking/removing packages
> that do not have valid SRC_URIs
> and if somebody wants to h
On 02/02/2013 12:17 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
>>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
>> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on
>> your hand every time you mask something. :)
On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
> and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on
> your hand every time you mask something. :)
Or maybe, you know, stop starting idiotic flamewars on principl
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> I suspect that the removal message is inaccurate. The actual reason for
> removal is the following:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298
>
> If you were to make a webpage for it and host the tarball for people, it
> should be poss
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:45:07 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> That seems rather speculative. I'm sure that people look for
> vulnerabilities in unmaintained software - if they didn't then nobody
> would be able to exploit them in the first place (you have to find a
> vulnerability to exploit it). I
On 02/01/2013 02:36 AM, Vaeth wrote:
>
>>># Upstream is dead and gone.
>>># Masked for removal on 20130302
>>
>> Erm, so this is the _only_ reason - dead upstream?
>
> ++
>
> Please, please, stop removing packages for no reason!
> This happens now way too often:
>
> app-dicts/ispell*
>
On 02/01/2013 07:07 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
>>> it isn't a
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>
> In the "dead upstream" case it's unlikely anyone is checking the
> package for security issues in the first place. So neither the Gentoo
> security people will get notice via the usual sources nor will any
> upstream be informed.
That see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for quoting a lot this time but it's important for understanding
the issue.
On 01.02.2013 15:00, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 01/02/13 08:56 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>> On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
And how will you get to know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 08:56 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> And how will you get to know about current or future security
>>> issues if nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
>> The same way that you know about s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> And how will you get to know about current or future security
>> issues if nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
> The same way that you know about security issues in Firefox or
> Chromium [...] Until
On 2/02/2013 00:36, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
As long as it builds on 80%+ of systems and has no serious issues
(security in particular) there is no reason to remove a package.
And how will you get to know abo
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
>
> And how will you get to know about current or future security issues if
> nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
The same way that you know about security issues in Firefox or
Chromium - somebody reports them. Security bugs still go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
> As long as it builds on 80%+ of systems and has no serious issues
> (security in particular) there is no reason to remove a package.
And how will you get to know about current or future security issues if
no
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> I'm not saying that we should remove a package because it has one
> trivial bug not fixed in three months. But when upstream is dead, and
> nobody in Gentoo is caring for it, has half a dozen open bug (trivial or
> not), unsolved or unsol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 06:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream
>> means - it isn't alwa
On 01/02/2013 13:36, Michael Weber wrote:
> Yeah, but test for /usr/share/doc/${PF} (random to irrelevant),
Which I don't open bugs about any longer.
> $CFLAGS/$LDFLAGS/$AR (enable these miraculous setup),
WTF does "enable these miraculous setup" mean? Seriously.
Also, no I don't test or bother
On 02/01/2013 01:22 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
>> Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
>> another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
>
> Which would be all fine and dandy
>
>> I agree on your test
On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
> Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
> another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
Which would be all fine and dandy
> I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the
> weirdest o
On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
>> it isn't always a bad thing).
>
> The problem is that a pack
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
>> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
>> it isn't always a bad thing).
>
> The problem is tha
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
> simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
> it isn't always a bad thing).
The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. Full stop.
Trying t
25 matches
Mail list logo
