Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > >> 160708 William Hubbs wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> >> IMO the criteria should be whether

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Philip Webb wrote: > 160708 William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > >> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not, > >> not whether upstream is more or less active. > >> If they're

[gentoo-dev] [warning] the bug queue has 97 bugs

Our bug queue has 97 bugs! If you have some spare time, please help assign/sort a few bugs. To view the bug queue, click here: http://bit.ly/m8PQS5 Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: the graveyard overlay

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:17:44 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > Completely aside from the question of criteria for removing stuff from > > the main tree, it would make a lot of users happy if every package > > which *is* removed were added to the graveyard overlay. > > Good idea, since we have

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

160708 William Hubbs wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not, >> not whether upstream is more or less active. >> If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them. >> However, if the biggest problem

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > I'm sorry for harping on that topic again, but if we had used grobian's > initial proposal for git migration[0] - one repository per package, and the > portage tree would be an aggregation of those - then

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

Rich Freeman schrieb: On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic. It would be even better if the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: the graveyard overlay

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:17:44PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: *snip* > But the problem is that this way overlay will become completely > broken in terms of both QA and security. Once it is in an overlay, we don't care about qa or security any longer, so this isn't a problem just a fact of

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and > extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic. > > It would be even better if the graveyard repository

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

Rich Freeman schrieb: You say that there are no bugs in those packages. How do you know? You don't know unless you test it, and no maintainer means nobody is known to test it regularly. The package can be pretty much completely broken and we'll not know unless someone tests it. This sounds

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 07:09:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:01:58 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote: > > > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On 07/08/2016 11:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:33:35 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate discussion. On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Now, there's a significant difference between lastriting unmaintained > packages at treecleaner's leisure and having a clean tree to work on, > and having to figure out how many of the packages blocking some global >

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:13:55 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 20:23:46 +0900 Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > What kind of policing would you like to see councilman? Would you > like to > > > see me

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On 07/08/2016 10:33 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate discussion. On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:33:35 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > > I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate > > discussion. > > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 19:09:04 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:01:58 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote: > > > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: the graveyard overlay

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:55:49 -0500 »Q« wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 > William Hubbs wrote: > > > There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the > > official tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it > > doesn't have an active

Re: [gentoo-dev] why is the security team running around p.masking packages

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 23:13:55 +0300 Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 20:23:46 +0900 Aaron Bauman wrote: > > What kind of policing would you like to see councilman? Would you like to > > see me removed from the project, because your precious package was > > p.masked? You have ignored

[gentoo-dev] Re: the graveyard overlay

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the > official tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it > doesn't have an active maintainer. > > I don't know why we haven't been using

Re: [gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate > discussion. > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On 7/8/16 10:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: >> >> Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages >> should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are >> not in good shape

[gentoo-dev] the graveyard overlay

I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate discussion. On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile > > wrote: > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 08:10:07AM -0500, james wrote: > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin > >> forks to see if anyone was

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: > > > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages > > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are > > not

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to >

Fwd: Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

Okay, I'll set the metadata.xml for both net-p2p/litecoin* and sys-process/nmon to the following: http://www.gentoo.org/dtd/metadata.dtd;> marc.p...@sunny-computing.de Marc Popp Maintainer. Assign bugs to him

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:10:07 -0500 james wrote: > On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin > >> forks to see if anyone was

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: Hi everyone, I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them. I didn't get any feedback so as of tomorrow I'll

Re: [gentoo-dev] masking and removing *coin packages

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin > forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them. I didn't get any > feedback so as of tomorrow I'll be masking the following for removal in >