AW == Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org writes:
AW If folks do not want to maintain it anymore, then it will be removed.
That is about as harmful an attitude as possible.
If you don't personally care about a package just leave it alone!
And if you want more maintainers, then drop the schoolkid
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
AW == Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org writes:
AW If folks do not want to maintain it anymore, then it will be removed.
That is about as harmful an attitude as possible.
If you don't personally care about a package just
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
it isn't always a bad thing).
The problem is that a package that doesn't change _will_ bitrot. Full stop.
Trying to
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
it isn't always a bad thing).
The
On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
it isn't always a bad thing).
The problem is that a package that
On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
Which would be all fine and dandy
I agree on your testing effort and practice, but compliance with the
weirdest of
On 02/01/2013 01:22 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 01/02/2013 13:07, Michael Weber wrote:
Making up new situations up like cross-dev, Gentoo/Prefix, or jet
another cluttered C compiler should not doom working software.
Which would be all fine and dandy
I agree on your testing
On 01/02/2013 13:36, Michael Weber wrote:
Yeah, but test for /usr/share/doc/${PF} (random to irrelevant),
Which I don't open bugs about any longer.
$CFLAGS/$LDFLAGS/$AR (enable these miraculous setup),
WTF does enable these miraculous setup mean? Seriously.
Also, no I don't test or bother
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 06:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream
means - it isn't always a
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
I'm not saying that we should remove a package because it has one
trivial bug not fixed in three months. But when upstream is dead, and
nobody in Gentoo is caring for it, has half a dozen open bug (trivial or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
As long as it builds on 80%+ of systems and has no serious issues
(security in particular) there is no reason to remove a package.
And how will you get to know about current or future security issues if
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Wulf C. Krueger w...@mailstation.de wrote:
And how will you get to know about current or future security issues if
nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
The same way that you know about security issues in Firefox or
Chromium - somebody reports them.
On 2/02/2013 00:36, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:26, Rich Freeman wrote:
As long as it builds on 80%+ of systems and has no serious issues
(security in particular) there is no reason to remove a package.
And how will you get to know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
And how will you get to know about current or future security
issues if nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
The same way that you know about security issues in Firefox or
Chromium [...] Until
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/02/13 08:56 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
And how will you get to know about current or future security
issues if nobody (in Gentoo) cares about the package?
The same way that you know about security
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry for quoting a lot this time but it's important for understanding
the issue.
On 01.02.2013 15:00, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 01/02/13 08:56 AM, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
On 01.02.2013 14:47, Rich Freeman wrote:
And how will you get to know about
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Wulf C. Krueger w...@mailstation.de wrote:
In the dead upstream case it's unlikely anyone is checking the
package for security issues in the first place. So neither the Gentoo
security people will get notice via the usual sources nor will any
upstream be
On 02/01/2013 07:07 AM, Michael Weber wrote:
On 02/01/2013 12:20 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 01/02/2013 12:11, Rich Freeman wrote:
I do think it is a loss for Gentoo if we start removing packages
simply because they don't change (which is all a dead upstream means -
it isn't always a bad
On 02/01/2013 02:36 AM, Vaeth wrote:
# Upstream is dead and gone.
# Masked for removal on 20130302
Erm, so this is the _only_ reason - dead upstream?
++
Please, please, stop removing packages for no reason!
This happens now way too often:
app-dicts/ispell*
app-portage/epm
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:45:07 -0500
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
That seems rather speculative. I'm sure that people look for
vulnerabilities in unmaintained software - if they didn't then nobody
would be able to exploit them in the first place (you have to find a
vulnerability to
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
I suspect that the removal message is inaccurate. The actual reason for
removal is the following:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298
If you were to make a webpage for it and host the tarball for people, it
On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on
your hand every time you mask something. :)
Or maybe, you know, stop starting idiotic flamewars on principles
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't have a war on
your hand every time you mask
On 02/02/2013 12:17 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 01/02/2013 23:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
For those who are doing the treecleaning, please do yourself a favor
and point out the actual show-stoppers so that you don't
130201 Rich Freeman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The actual reason for removal is the following:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425298
I'm perfectly fine with masking/removing packages
that do not have valid SRC_URIs
and if somebody
25 matches
Mail list logo
