On Tuesday 27 October 2009 09:09:48 Petteri Räty wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 October 2009 02:07:02 Ryan Hill wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:48:39 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote: > >>> James Cloos wrote: > >>>> When you first psoted this list I noticed some (or several?) live > >>>> ebuilds. Git-9999 is the one I remember. > >>>> > >>>> Those should not get nuked during global cleanups, as they are likely > >>>> to be in active use notwithstanding their keywording or masking. > >>> > >>> Their maintainers should be active and switch their ebuilds to EAPI 2. > >>> If they don't have an active maintainer, then do we want to keep live > >>> ebuilds for them around? > >> > >> Your stated goal was to remove unused ebuilds, which live ebuilds are > >> not, regardless of the status of the maintainer. And I'm pretty sure > >> git has an active maintainer. :P > > > > indeed. you really should file bugs for these instead of deleting > > ebuilds on people who missed a thread on gentoo-dev. > > All developers are required to follow gentoo-dev-announce. If they don't > follow that, it can't be expected for them to follow bugzilla either.
that's a poor excuse. file bugs instead of tromping on other people's packages since you clearly have a list of ebuilds you shouldnt be removing and you dont intend to fix. i doubt Ryan's example of git-9999 is the only one. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
