On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 1:39 PM Marty E. Plummer <hanet...@startmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 06:24:39PM +0000, Alexey Sokolov wrote:
> >
> > What you're describing is live ebuilds, and I agree they are useful.
> > Joonas was talking about packages which have *only* live ebuilds, and no
> > other versions, and not even snapshots.
> >
> I must have misread, then, as I assumed a kill of all ${PN}-*9999*.ebuild
> I suppose no live-only is reasonable for the most part, if there are
> non-live releases (not all software is at that point in their release
> cycles).This still seems like a solution searching for a problem. What is the downside to having these in the tree? If you remove them from the tree: 1. They move from having minimal QA to zero QA. 2. They don't get updated when larger Gentoo-wide things happen. 3. People have to do searches to realize they even exist. 4. If somebody finds one they probably have to add some random overlay to their config, which causes this package to become available, probably along with 47 other packages that can potentially conflict with other things in the tree, all with zero QA. Obviously if somebody notices that such an ebuild is broken it should get treecleaned if the maintainer doesn't respond to a bug. However, it sounds like we're talking about a handful of packages after almost two decades of allowing them. Since they're masked, they don't do anything unless somebody actually goes poking at them, and if they do they probably file a bug and they'll go away. Certainly it is good to have snapshotted versions that get more QA where appropriate, and that should probably be communicated. When it is done with an "or else" attached the result is likely to be that a lot of stuff just gets removed, with little benefit... -- Rich
