Le Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:37:19PM +0000, Duncan a écrit: > FWIW, I feel for the treecleaners. It's a job with little > thanks and lots of chance to make someone mad at you, but I'm > glad /someone's/ doing it! =:^)
Yeah. I'm glad each time I see old things getting deleted, abandoned software and such. So, yeah, thanks, treecleaners. Your job is as easy as a sysadmin's one: no one knows you exist, except when someone needs to scream at you... > In the case of the INNs of the tree, that should prevent > masking entirely, since popular packages will certainly have > someone raising the roof on just the warning, within a day or > two. That was certainly the case here. No masking means > ordinary users won't have to ever know it happened. Well, as it happens, I knew it was being masked because I got the mail warning from gentoo-dev-announce, which is unfortunately a bit badly advertised. Anyway, I would have scratched my head far, far more if I had to understand WTF portage would complain about an inn masked... I don't care when it's small, unused package -- last time it was lprof, and I didn't really care, it was a bit still here from a package I installed years ago, and which passed through depclean. So, what about something like: * mail on gentoo-dev-announce, saying "heads up. mask in one week" * one week later, mask and "classical" mail "foo/bar masked" I have absolutely no idea how much work it requires, so I won't complain if TC says it's too complicated/unpratical/etc. BTW, I have no knowledge of the concept of proxy-maintainer, I'll look at it tomorrow, it's 2am here... :) I don't even think I ever heard of it before, but I didn't brush my gentoo-fu for a few years, that may explain... Arnaud.