Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, > | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just > | institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a > | virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if > | necessary. > > Much more sensible.
I've thought some about this. It would be acceptable to me for virtual/x11 to provide modular X deps, if we also instituted a repoman death upon any attempt to commit to a directory for which the best visible package is broken. This will accomplish the goal of discovering completely unmaintained packages but will fail in the goal of discovering which packages nobody uses. They'll still continue to rot in the tree, unmaintained, unused and taking up space in everybody's syncs. How's that sound? Thanks, Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
