On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:22:13PM +0000, Elfyn McBratney wrote: > Ciao, > > The outcome of the meeting is, basically, that we need to be a lot more > careful/cautious when it comes to punting packages from the tree. For > example, in cases where packages work but the ebuilds themselves do not, > we should fixing those up where possible. Same goes for packages that > are widely used e.g., XMMS (that one just came into my head, honest!). > > In addition to this, we'll also be following a process similar to that > used by the security team: file a bug (assigned to maintainer-needed > with treecleaners on the CC) detailing why exactly package foo should be > masked/removed; X yes votes from treecleaner members will result in the > package getting package.mask-ed and/or removed from the tree. > Thanks, I believe many users (and devs) will be happy to see improved policies regarding package removals. I'm also personally very much looking forward to an official Proxy Maintainers project -proxy maintaining is one of the things I've been advertising in my own small way for a long time now and I've been very happy working with several proxy maintainers the last couple of years.
Finally, I hope this can lead to a good discussion about future policies and not concentrate on past package removals and possible mistakes in that regard. We want to look forward and improve the processes. Thanks for the summary and good luck on both projects. Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
