On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > 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?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' ride, I'm personally all for it. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
