On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:25:02 +0000 Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2016.01.21 16:53, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass <np-hard...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > > > > > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within > > them, I > > > > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > > > > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I > > was > > > > wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible > > > > solutions. > > > > > > > > There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at > > this > > > > time, look like they will not be claimed by developers. This will > > > > likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages > > (and > > > > subsequent package rot). This isn't to say that some of these > > > > packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, > > but > > > > now, they will explicitly be there. > > > > > > > > > > Speaking as the dude who founded the treecleaners project...all > > things die. > > > Even software. While some may yearn for a software archive (nee, > > > graveyard!), I put forth that the gentoo-x86 tree is not such a > > thing. Do > > > not weep for the unmaintained packages that will be cleaned![1] > > > > I couldn't have said this better myself. The gentoo-x86 tree is not a > > software archival service. If packages are unmaintained, that is what > > the treecleaners project is for is to boot those packages out of the > > tree. > > > > I would like to see a possible timelimit set on how long packages can > > stay in maintainer-needed; once a package goes there, if we can't find > > someone to maintain it, we should consider booting it after that time > > limit passes. > > > > If someone wants to run the graveyard overlay and keep those old > > packages around more power to them, but they definitely do not > > belong in the main tree if they are unmaintained for an extended > > period > > of time. > > > > William > > > > > > There is no point in removing unmaintained but perfectly functional software > from the tree. > It needs to be both unmaintained and broken. Broken being evidenced by at > least one open bug. That's nonsense. In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what should be removed. If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you forcing me to waste a time reporting a bug to no maintainer who could fix it? Because to me, the lack of any open bugs is a clear evidence that the package is not only unmaintained, but also unused. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpvMDRjkN96q.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
