Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Could we establish policies for closing them or leaving them to sit > open? > > - Upstream dead, previously submitted URLs no longer functional (yes, > there are actually some like this!). > - No ebuild included. > - Upstream says obsolete in favour of another package. > - Dev notes obsolete in favour of another package - suggest it to the > submitter, and see what they say. > - Major unresolved security issues. > - Excessive complexity / unsuitable for ebuild installs (eg apps that > are meant to be built and run from the same directory).
More or less what I've been doing for past few months... Today, I've also closed all ebuild requests 1+ year old w/ zero activity as CANTFIX, asking the reporter to attach an ebuild. Bugs like "I'd like to see foo/bar in portage, ktnxbye" don't need to sit in bugzilla for ages if noone is interested, not really useful. (And - as mentioned before, some automation of the process would be nice ;) > At the same time, existing developers and teams should be encouraged to > look at those under maintainer-wanted, and consider stuff there. > I try to keep an eye out for app-backup and other fields that I'm > involved in. Also, please really close useless cruft when you come across it (see above). -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
