On 11/02/2013 07:12 PM, yac wrote: > 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 >
I will not discuss this further. If you want to save it, step up and maintain it. -- Regards, Markos Chandras
