On 29/10/16 21:25, NP-Hardass wrote: > On 10/29/2016 02:30 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> >> Someone needs to take over responsibility for the packages >> (maintainership) and fixing the issues then. If not, they should be removed. >> > I'm only talking about the packages that have no other issues and are > only being treecleaned because of this dependency. Honestly, I don't > care about any of those packages. I only brought this up because > sometimes it is better to only treeclean when appropriate, and if > switching from one dep to another (which should have been virtual'd) > resolves it, it might not still meet the conditions for tree cleaning. > We don't normally tree clean packages simply because they are old or > don't have a maintainer. > > So, I will reiterate my one and only point, for those that are only > being removed due to the removal of capi4kutils, how many are still > worthy of being treecleaned after swapping out that dep? > > If you feel that is too high a maintenance burden, fine, remove them > all. I'm merely proposing it be looked at since otherwise we are > potentially removing packages that don't have to or shouldn't be removed. > Whilst this may potentially be a contentious topic (and one that g-p-m has partially attempted to address) there has been a mildly aggressive policy applied to treecleaning, whereby if something is old and missing a maintainer and/or has even minor issues it is likely be nuked without so much as anyone attempting to solve the issues. Granted, all too often there IS nobody to address any issues, or outstanding bugs, but I too am somewhat of the opinion that if a package builds, has some form of upstream source, does NOT have any security vulnerabilities, it should live in the main Gentoo tree. This doesn't seem to be a view shared by all, but there appears to be a bias to remove and potentially re-add later, than maintain what we have properly.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
