On 10/29/2016 02:30 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 10/29/2016 07:59 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: >> On 10/08/2016 07:57 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> # Fails to build (#515294), nothing needs it, relies on obsolete >>> capi4kutils. >>> >> >> For all the packages being removed due to capi4kutils, how many were >> investigated with net-libs/libcapi? For WINE, we transitioned to using >> libcapi instead of capi4kutils, and I don't see why some of those >> couldn't as well, provided the capi4kutils is the only reason why those >> are being treecleaned. >> > > Someone needs to take over responsibility for the packages > (maintainership) and fixing the issues then. If not, they should be removed. >
I'm only talking about the packages that have no other issues and are only being treecleaned because of this dependency. Honestly, I don't care about any of those packages. I only brought this up because sometimes it is better to only treeclean when appropriate, and if switching from one dep to another (which should have been virtual'd) resolves it, it might not still meet the conditions for tree cleaning. We don't normally tree clean packages simply because they are old or don't have a maintainer. So, I will reiterate my one and only point, for those that are only being removed due to the removal of capi4kutils, how many are still worthy of being treecleaned after swapping out that dep? If you feel that is too high a maintenance burden, fine, remove them all. I'm merely proposing it be looked at since otherwise we are potentially removing packages that don't have to or shouldn't be removed. -- NP-Hardass
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
