On 03/13/2010 01:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the
Samuli Suominen wrote:
if a package is broken, and been in treecleaners queue for too long, and
it would be a semi-trivial fix, it simply doesn't get done without manpower
Because i can't find this info on the treecleaner project page: is there
a bugzilla query for the treecleaners queue, so
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:34:22 +0100
Matti Bickel m...@gentoo.org wrote:
I have found 4 bugs assigned to treeclea...@gentoo.org, but i'm sure i
missed something.
If you have time to spare, bugs assigned to maintainer-needed@ and
often rotting in bugzilla for ages despite having patches
On 03/13/2010 12:34 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
if a package is broken, and been in treecleaners queue for too long, and
it would be a semi-trivial fix, it simply doesn't get done without manpower
Because i can't find this info on the treecleaner project page: is there
a
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote:
Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
everyone.
On 13 March 2010 00:07, Ryan Hill dirtye...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree. That's
why we have a treecleaners project.
The treecleaners project is tasked with keeping these
