On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 03 March 2010 18:29:13 Mark Loeser wrote: >> Michael Sterrett <mr_bon...@gentoo.org> said: >> > I've remove the mask for games-fps/openarena. >> > >> > The mask was done without consulting the games team. >> >> This is no reason to remove the mask. The games team had more than >> enough time to fix the package. I'll be adding the mask back as the >> package is vulnerable via multiple bundled libs and therefore shouldn't >> be in the tree. You can apply the patches if you want to keep it and >> remove the mask at that time. >> >> Thanks, > This thread is yet another proof that we need to introduce a "Upcoming > masking" for unmaintained packages.
<sarcasm> Shall I file those forms in triplicate and fax them to the main office sir? </sarcasm> Since amazingly I actually started the Treecleaners project; the intent was actually to fix problems with packages. Part of the problem is that there are hundreds of packages in the tree and the fixes vary in complexity so it is difficult to create hard-and-fast rules on when to keep a package versus when to toss it. One of the things I like about masking is that it quickly gets people who actually care about the package up to bat to fix it instead of leaving it broken for months. I realize maintainers do not exactly enjoy this kind of poking, however when things have been left for long enough I believe our options become a bit more limited (in this case, masking for removal due to unfixed sec bugs.) > > Instead of first masking a package and then announce it, we can simply > announce > that we are gonna mask the package in 10days if there is no activity on the > respective bug > -- > Markos Chandras (hwoarang) > Gentoo Linux Developer > Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org >
