On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
well the logical thing would be to go to bugzilla and search for ...
and guess what ? no more open bug reports
I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an open bug
for it. So I guess you didn't actually go trough
On 18/04/06, foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
well the logical thing would be to go to bugzilla and search for ...
and guess what ? no more open bug reports
I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an open bug
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
Are you suggesting that all packages with long standing open bug
reports should be removed? There are thousands that fit that
description. If not, then what is your definition of maintained? It
could be argued that since Mike fixed the
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 07:00, foser wrote:
On Sun, 2006-04-16 at 16:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
well the logical thing would be to go to bugzilla and search for
... and guess what ? no more open bug reports
I already did that when I wrote it, actually there still is an open bug
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 09:51, foser wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 14:11 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
Maybe you aren't a native English speaker; it was clear from Mike's
post that he would rather you didn't go ahead with removing hundreds
of packages.
I don't know how this relates to my
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
either you have a policy of cutting unmaintained packages or you dont ... you
cant have some vague middle ground
Hide behind policy if you can't do it with common sense. The policy is
to add valid metadata.xml data to packages that do
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 10:41, foser wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
either you have a policy of cutting unmaintained packages or you dont ...
you cant have some vague middle ground
Hide behind policy if you can't do it with common sense.
dont know what
foser wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:22 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
either you have a policy of cutting unmaintained packages or you dont ... you
cant have some vague middle ground
Hide behind policy if you can't do it with common sense. The policy is
to add valid metadata.xml data to
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 10:53 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
dont know what policy you're referring to seeing as how we dont have any
concerning unmaintained packages
Still hiding... c'mon you are better than this.
sure, for new packages ... isnt a new package
The policy concerning
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:56 +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote:
If no one has an objection, I'll pick up that package, I think it is fun,
never
tought I'd use it, but I have so much code written I'd like how much I have
really done.
If there is no objection I'll make the update needed,
foser wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:56 +0300, Philippe Trottier wrote:
If no one has an objection, I'll pick up that package, I think it is fun, never
tought I'd use it, but I have so much code written I'd like how much I have
really done.
If there is no objection I'll make the update
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 14:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
and it helps no one to go around cutting packages that have no outstanding
issues with them
Sure it helps keep Gentoo clean and up-to-date, the load of packages
that are outdated are often unmaintained as well. The one leads to the
On Sunday 16 April 2006 11:17, foser wrote:
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 14:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
and it helps no one to go around cutting packages that have no
outstanding issues with them
Sure it helps keep Gentoo clean and up-to-date, the load of packages
that are outdated are often
-3.1.4 now in portage
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
-3.1.4 now in portage
Why did you add that, without adding metadata ? That is just wrong.
It is better to remove it if there is no maintainer, you upping it
without adding yourself as maintainer is no form of maintenance. This is
foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 02:54 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
-3.1.4 now in portage
Why did you add that, without adding metadata ? That is just wrong.
It is better to remove it if there is no maintainer, you upping it
without adding yourself as maintainer is
On 15/04/06, Mark Loeser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
foser [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I still say it should be removed in 30 days.
I agree. There is a lot of stuff that suffers from being unmaintained,
and I think we should strive towards cleaning that up. It helps no one
if there isn't anyone
On Saturday 15 April 2006 12:07, Mark Loeser wrote:
I agree. There is a lot of stuff that suffers from being unmaintained,
and I think we should strive towards cleaning that up. It helps no one
if there isn't anyone to claim responsibility for the package when there
is a problem.
and it
dev-util/ is not depended on by any other applications, the stable
version does not compile, and while upstream has newer releases which most
likely work...there is no Gentoo maintainer (bug #128109). If no one steps
up to maintain it in 30 days, I will be removing it.
--
Mark Loeser -
19 matches
Mail list logo
