> On Aug 5, 2018, at 1:01 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:59 AM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 3:30 AM, Marty E. Plummer <hanet...@startmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: >>>> > W dniu pią, 22.06.2018 o godzinie 21∶50 -0500, użytkownik Marty E. >>>> > Plummer napisał: >>>> > > So, as you may be aware I've been doing some work on moving bzip2 to an >>>> > > autotools based build. Recently I've ran into app-crypt/mhash, which is >>>> > > in a semi-abandoned state (talking with the maintainer on twitter atm), >>>> > > and I was thinking it may be a good idea to set up a project for >>>> > > keeping >>>> > > these semi-abandoned and really-abandoned libraries and projects up to >>>> > > date and such. >>>> > > >>>> > > Basically, an upstream for packages who's upstream is either >>>> > > uncontactable or is otherwise not accepting bug fixes and patches. So >>>> > > far I can only think of app-crypt/mhash and app-arch/bzip2 but I'm sure >>>> > > there are others in this state. >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > So in order to fix problem of semi-abandoned packages, you're creating >>>> > an indirect herd-like entity that will soon be semi-abandoned itself >>>> > because people will be dumping random packages into it and afterwards >>>> > nobody will claim responsibility for them. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Best regards, >>>> > Michał Górny >>>> >>>> No, I mean for packages which are important enough in gentoo to warrant >>>> such treatment. For instance, every email I've tried for bzip2's >>>> upstream bounced or recieved no reply. That, I assume, is important >>>> enough to actually maintain and improve. Any other library which may be >>>> as important which are as inactive would be added. >>>> >>> >>> I suspect this might be better done in the Linux foundation itself as they >>> have staffing for core components that everyone is using. >> This would put decision making power into the hands of bureaucrats. I would >> rather it remain in a community of volunteers. > > Meh, it doesn't hurt to ask there about interest (they certainly fund > development of other components.) Its not like they have to accept, or that > declining somehow inhibits this development. > > Part of my frustration is that seemingly "anything open source related can be > held in Gentoo" and I'm somewhat against that as I feel it dilutes the Gentoo > mission. We are here to make a distribution, not maintain random libraries. > If you want to do that feel free; but I don't see a need for that work to be > associated with Gentoo.
This could just be done as a downstream effort that carries patches without a subproject, but structuring it as a subproject would be a call for collaboration with other distributions, which would ultimately benefit us. > >> >> I consider upstream development efforts by Gentoo developers to be >> beneficial to Gentoo. Nothing makes fixing an issue in Gentoo at upstream a >> priority quite like it affecting a key upstream developer in his day to day >> life. >> >> >> Also, the Linux Foundation is not embarking on such a project and we clearly >> have someone willing to try, so I say that we should go for it. Having >> people that wish to take a more active role in upstream development would >> not make us any worse off. It is their time to volunteer, so it is not like >> they will volunteer it for something else if we discourage them.
