On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> 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 possible to resolve that bug. That should be sufficient to > have the removal mask removed.
Yes, after sending out my email I took a closer look and came to the same conclusion. I'm perfectly fine with masking/removing packages that do not have valid SRC_URIs, and if somebody wants to host the tarball somewhere and submit a patch to fix it we shouldn't have a problem with a dev committing that patch and prolonging the package a bit longer (though ideally a proxy maintainer would be helpful). Bottom line is that we shouldn't drop packages simply because they're unmaintained or lack an upstream. Missing SRC_URIs on unmaintained packages are fair game, however, as are other serious issues. I have no desire to make the mirror maintainers sort through log noise on something like this. 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. :) Rich
