On Monday 11 January 2010 22:43:18 Jeremy Olexa wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:37 -0500, Richard Freeman wrote: > > On 01/11/2010 06:30 PM, Arnaud Launay wrote: > >> As a newsmaster, I'm a bit concerned by this. > > > > Yeah, inn seems like a really high-profile package to mask for removal. > > It would be conspicuous in its absence. > > > > Would it make sense to post on -dev BEFORE masking packages like this? > > I'm sure there are lots of people who would chip in before something > > like this dies. > > (A general reply, not targeted towards you, Rich) > > Speaking on behalf of the treecleaners: > The fact is, some of us have never heard of "inn" and until Gentoo has > some sort of "popularity tracking" software/tool, the treecleaners will > continue to mask unmaintained software. We can't possible know about every > package in the tree and if it looks like it is unmaintained (open bugs w/o > action) then we will mask it for removal unless someone fixes it and > maintains it.
you need to fix your filter then. an "open bug" is not an acceptable reason for masking a package. if you're going to clean a package, you need to research actual reasons to mask & punt. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
