Le lundi 04 février 2013 à 12:08 +0100, Michael Weber a écrit :
> On 02/03/2013 07:07 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> > We the Gentoo developers strongly believe that this project is not fun
> > and not important.
> veto. a) there is no "we", b) there are conrary posts on this list.
that doesn'
On 02/03/2013 07:07 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> We the Gentoo developers strongly believe that this project is not fun
> and not important.
veto. a) there is no "we", b) there are conrary posts on this list.
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Vaeth
wrote:
> Yep! That's the right attitude: Give the people 30 days (even those
> people who are currently not at Gentoo for whatever reason) to know
> years in advance all the software they might ever need and tell them,
> if in doubt, just to maintain hundred
(My last public mail on the topic, I promise).
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
If you want an automatic archive for dropped packages, MAKE ONE!
You can study the problem with single-person projects at the example
of the (previous) Gentoo Wiki.
Without having the files on (at least some) mirrors it
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Vaeth wrote:
> Sorry, but I feel that I must explain once more:
>
>
When I came to Gentoo many years ago, this was a very rare problem,
but the removal of packages has tremendously increased, and it is
not only me who is observing this problem - there
On Sun, 2013-02-03 at 06:07 +0100, Vaeth wrote:
> So this 30 day delay will enable these people to get involved,
> especially for all the packages which were removed in the last years?
> Now it is apparent that an archive for dropped packages (in the
> form of keeping masked packages or some other
Sorry, but I feel that I must explain once more:
When I came to Gentoo many years ago, this was a very rare problem,
but the removal of packages has tremendously increased, and it is
not only me who is observing this problem - there were already some
threads in the forums, and people planning to
Am Freitag, 1. Februar 2013, 14:53:19 schrieb Tomáš Chvátal:
> just to be sure here "Removals are completely up to the maintainer to
> decide", with expection of QA removal where the package must be
> already broken to get punted.
>
> If you as developers and users find some package useful you can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/2013 01:49 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> Dne So 2. února 2013 12:44:30, Vaeth napsal(a):
>>>
>>> When I came to Gentoo many years ago, this was a very rare problem,
>>> but the rem
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne So 2. února 2013 12:44:30, Vaeth napsal(a):
> >
> > When I came to Gentoo many years ago, this was a very rare problem,
> > but the removal of packages has tremendously increased, and it is
> > not only me who is observing this p
Dne So 2. února 2013 12:44:30, Vaeth napsal(a):
>
> When I came to Gentoo many years ago, this was a very rare problem,
> but the removal of packages has tremendously increased, and it is
> not only me who is observing this problem - there were already some
> threads in the forums, and people plan
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Vaeth wrote:
> I just ask that Gentoo should not *hinder* the user in installing/
> maintaining a package later by removing the tarballs (and possibly
> patches) which once were available.
So, I can see the validity of this argument insofar as it applies to
Gentoo-
The ebuild is still available by CVS (or maybe git in future),
but if there were already a lot of gentoo patches, the tarball with
these patches is lost forever. If even upstream is dead, not even
the main tarball will be available anymore.
Oh but it can mostly these archaic packages do not have
Dne Pá 1. února 2013 18:40:32, Vaeth napsal(a):
> > [...] and if anyone wants to start where we left he
> > can pick out the ebuild from attic and put into his own overlay where
> > it might work for him or even put it back to tree fixed.
>
> And this is exactly what *cannot* be done after a while
[...] and if anyone wants to start where we left he
can pick out the ebuild from attic and put into his own overlay where
it might work for him or even put it back to tree fixed.
And this is exactly what *cannot* be done after a while:
The ebuild is still available by CVS (or maybe git in fut
On 01/02/2013 18:00, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> No, they won't get anyone looking over their shoulder unless they
> decide to neglect the bugs as few maintainers did.
> I didn't see a lot forced removals caused by qa, did you?
As far as I can tell, they come down to two:
- webmin; which was saved af
2013/2/1 Rich Freeman :
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> If you as developers and users find some package useful you can retake
>> the maintainership (or became proxy-maint) which also expects you to
>> take care of the bugs (QA can prune it even if you take the
>> maintai
If security bugs occur then there's two options -- fix, or remove.
(Or maybe mask with message clearly indicating security issues
or warn about possibly unknown security issues).
I agree. But security bugs are really relevant only for a rather
limited types of packages: Those which are SUID (or
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> If you as developers and users find some package useful you can retake
> the maintainership (or became proxy-maint) which also expects you to
> take care of the bugs (QA can prune it even if you take the
> maintainership but ignore failures [e
Hello guys,
just to be sure here "Removals are completely up to the maintainer to
decide", with expection of QA removal where the package must be
already broken to get punted.
If you as developers and users find some package useful you can retake
the maintainership (or became proxy-maint) which a
20 matches
Mail list logo
