Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 01:27:17 CEST Jimi Huotari wrote: > I'd certainly be fine with this, and 'app-admin/system-tools-backends', > which is next on my list to go, to be assigned to maintainer-wanted > instead of being removed. Looking at the linked bug, the package was doomed in 2016, last-rites is inevitable. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 00:23:44 CEST Peter Stuge wrote: > Jimi Huotari wrote: > > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04) > > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use. > > # Removal in 30 days. > > dev-libs/liboobs > > Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\ > > Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem? > (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it. If you know a reason to keep it, please mention it. Otherwise, a non-high-profile library that had no consumers in 2015 has no business of staying in tree in 2020. I rather have the current maintainer, fully aware of its redundancy, send those last-rites instead of effectively asking a poor random dev in the future to completely unnecessarily waste time on maintenance or do the necessary research before removing it. Regards signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 22:23 +, Peter Stuge wrote: > Jimi Huotari wrote: > > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04) > > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use. > > # Removal in 30 days. > > dev-libs/liboobs > > Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\ > > Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem? > (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it. > Yes, having 1953 unmaintained packages is great PR for Gentoo. Wait, it will be 1954 now. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 22:23:44 + Peter Stuge wrote: > Jimi Huotari wrote: > > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04) > > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use. > > # Removal in 30 days. > > dev-libs/liboobs > > Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\ > > Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem? > (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it. > > > //Peter > I'd certainly be fine with this, and 'app-admin/system-tools-backends', which is next on my list to go, to be assigned to maintainer-wanted instead of being removed. I've sort of inherited these, but have no use for them, and nothing else depends on them. The mask is not live yet, so any advice how to move along will be appreciated. :] See also: - https://bugs.gentoo.org/542846 - https://bugs.gentoo.org/667654 - https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/16989 pgpuITH_3yTqd.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
Jimi Huotari wrote: > # Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04) > # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use. > # Removal in 30 days. > dev-libs/liboobs Wut - isn't that a really poor reason to remove from the tree? :\ Why not just keep it unless there is an actual technical problem? (Security, maintainability, etc.) If there is, then please mention it. //Peter
[gentoo-dev] Last-rites: dev-libs/liboobs
# Jimi Huotari (2020-08-04) # No consumers since 2015, and no known stand-alone use. # Removal in 30 days. dev-libs/liboobs pgpT_PzXQrZDg.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
