On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 17:57:34 +0000 Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 05:55 PM, yac wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I don't think that upstream deciding to rewrite a package is good > > enough reason to tree clean the package. Have you done this > > with eg. bind package which is constantly rewritten and constantly > > have security issues? > > > > The same goes for closing bugs until the versions are > > removed from portage (either because version deprecation or > > treeclean with proper reason) as users may find those informational. > > > > Ok let me clarify this again > > 1) The original code of the package is gone since upstream started > from scratch. What do you mean by gone? I still can `ebuild xarchiver* fetch` the sources. Otherwise this is not a reason to treeclean the package. > 2) It has no maintainer. Not a reason for treecleaning. > 3) It has open bugs and upstream will never fix them and there is no > maintainer to patch the code to fix it properly. In bgo[1] there are two bugs open. Upstream [2] seems to have more bugs but they also seem to be mostly new features or corner cases. There already was discussion on treecleaning bug[3] where you claim the package is "broken" while several users explain it is broken *partialy*. Eg. c30 says only 2 formats doesn't work. c21 claims it always crashes on passwords, however upstream bug reports indicates it's also true for only some formats. c6 indicates xarchiver will break on unrar-5 when it will go stable but it still is not stable, is it? Given the way this issue is communicated, I have to ask - Is it even true? The rar major version seems to be related to rar format version rather then ABI/API. Even if xarchiver breaks on unrar-5, I see many other packages depending on unrar, do you know these will not break and possibility of having both unrar4 and 5 will not be just due xarchiver? > So per treecleaner policy the package will be removed. > > Or have you just volunteered to become maintainer and fix the bugs? > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=xarchiver [2] https://bugzilla.xfce.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=xarchiver [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=483588 -- Jan Matějka | Gentoo Developer https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux GPG: F97A36A1
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
