Ühel kenal päeval, N, 05.12.2019 kell 23:23, kirjutas David Seifert:
> When we started removing Qt4, tons of code still used it. To put
> things
> in perspective:
> grep -rl 'IUSE.*python_targets_python2_7' /usr/portage/metadata/md5-
> cache/ | wc -l
> gives me 7070 ebuilds currently. 7070 is easily more than one and
> closer to two orders of magnitude more ebuilds using python 2 than
> Qt4
> back in the days.

You are dramatizing things too much on purpose here. That gives you a
list of almost all PYTHON_COMPAT packages, the majority of which
support python3 already, and will happily continue working after the
user drops python2_7 from PYTHON_TARGETS or it gets dropped from the
_PYTHON_ALL_IMPLS list in python-utils-r1.eclass.

> Removing maintainer-needed and other semi-dead
> packages is part of a proactive strategy in continuously removing and
> treecleaning stale stuff from the tree.

That's the problem right here. The mask included packages that are not
maintainer-needed, nor maintained by python@ or other projects you or
Aaron are active members of. And it was a careless mask, masking even
some things that aren't even affected, merely had python2 mentioned in
some commented out stuff, afaiu.

I don't think there would be such a huge outcry if this was done right
- involving the actual maintainers of these packages, not just going
ahead and package.masking them from under them 150+ days ahead of time
of actual upstream python2 last release. Presumably most of these
maintainers would already know whether the package is in the progress
of being ported upstream (and just needs probably less than 120 days to
complete that work and make a release), or know that it's dead and go
away. Or they don't respond, and you can p.mask them on a maintainer
honoring timeout.

As this was done is completely unacceptable. Honor your fellow
maintainers and don't trample over them like this. We already are in a
lack of manpower, don't chase more away by trying to take the easy
route and doing stuff like this without involving them via a tracker
bug or other proper ways.
If you don't maintain a package, you get to work with the maintainer,
not do as you please without involving them at all. I am not aware of
QA having such blanket authority either for such a case.

I don't think anyone can have a valid problem with package.mask of some
of the things mentioned (sabnzbd, abcde, etc), because they were indeed
maintainer-needed or sound@ (which David is part of, and is known
crickets territory) or whatnot. It seems to have found interested
maintainers, as is normal with last-rite type of package.masks.
But by including things that are actually maintained, without any
apparent involvement of those maintainers, you allow for such outcry
even for things that shouldn't be a problem, because you display ill
intent and dishonoring towards your fellow maintainers.

Honor your fellow Gentoo maintainers. Period.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to