Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 06/01/17 17:14, Alec Warner wrote: > > Treecleaning to me is really two things: > > 1) developer maintenance time. > a) It costs nothing to add packages to the tree, and the tree grows > in size every year. > b) Removals occur due to obsolescence (X replaces Y, etc) but these > are strictly

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 06/01/17 15:01, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: >> If packages had a field called "BUGS=" it could contain an array of >> bugs a package is known to contain, but can be conditionally avoided if >> you're careful. >> >> Packages with

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On 06/01/17 04:27, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:23:02 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I tend to be firmly in the camp that a package shouldn't be removed >> unless there is evidence of a serious bug (and that includes things >> blocking other Gentoo packages). >

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Friday, January 6, 2017 9:13:20 AM EST Michael Mol wrote: > > The bigger resource drain, I suspect, will come from maintaining new ebuilds > of old packages; as eclass development and maintenance seeks to eliminate > old and buggy code, old ebuilds will need to be dragged along for the ride.

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Friday, January 6, 2017 9:14:54 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: > > The nice thing about ::graveyard or similar is that its a clear demarcation > between maintained (in tree) and unmaintained (graveyard.) It also means > that people doing actual maintenance work can basically ignore the > graveyard

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: x11-libs/gtk+:1

# Mart Raudsepp (06 Jan 2017) # No releases of this API version since April 2001, abandoned # in favour of gtk+:2 for 14 years. # Masked for removal in 30 days. Bug 604862. x11-libs/gtk+:1

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman: add gentoo to remote-id type.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 14:12:17 +0200 Alexander Berntsen wrote: > Is there an associated bug for this? The patch itself looks reasonable > enough, but I prefer knowing the background for patches being deemed > necessary. > > > Also, get rid of the period in the commit

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > So my understanding of the status quo is that maintainers get to make the > call with regard to what is reasonable to keep or drop. I'm loathe to add > additional policy here; mostly because the expectation is that the >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman: make unused local USE flags an error

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 14:29:01 -0800 Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 13:14:38 -0500 > Mike Gilbert wrote: > > > X-Gentoo-Bug: 602002 > > X-Gentoo-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/602002 > > --- > >

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:23:02 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > I tend to be firmly in the camp that a package shouldn't be removed > > unless there is evidence of a serious bug (and that includes things >

Re: [gentoo-dev] New Project: Gentoostats

On 01/06/2017 08:08 AM, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: > Hi, > > Daniel Campbell: >> On 01/02/2017 09:27 AM, Gokturk Yuksek wrote: >>> Alexander Shorin: Hi! Thanks for sharing. Would be nice see updated README file (it contains outdated links to Not Found pages) and add few notes about

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > > If packages had a field called "BUGS=" it could contain an array of > bugs a package is known to contain, but can be conditionally avoided if > you're careful. > > Packages with non-empty BUGS= fields would be treated as

Re: Why lastrite when it works? (Was: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement)

On Friday, January 6, 2017 5:27:24 PM EST Kent Fredric wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:23:02 -0500 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > I tend to be firmly in the camp that a package shouldn't be removed > > unless there is evidence of a serious bug (and that includes things > > blocking

[gentoo-dev] Drop global USE=frontbase

The "frontbase" USE flag has no consumers that I can find: gentoo.git $ grep -irl frontbase * profiles/arch/x86/use.mask profiles/use.desc profiles/base/use.mask If no one objects, I'll drop the flag and its masks.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs due to retirement

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 05.01.2017 kell 22:00, kirjutas Daniel Campbell: > I'm in favor of keeping software around until it breaks. When there's > a > non-existent upstream and nobody's willing to take up the helm > themselves, it's a clear indication that it's in danger of being > treecleaned. In