On Jun 12, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
Nope and they should usually be kept but we can't make a hard rule
because there are cases where the old ebuilds don't work any more. If
you find that a broken version slipped the cracks of the arch teams
and
made it to stable with the old version removed, file a bug to
bugs.gentoo.org and hopefully the maintainer learns from his/her
mistake
of removing it too soon. If the maintainer keeps on doing the same
thing, then you can try to escalate things to qa/devrel. If you are
using ~arch, then encountering some broken stuff is fully expected,
just
file a bug and the maintainer is expected to react in a timely manner.
I agree, if an ebuild is broken then it should be removed since it
doesn't work at all. But rather than exchanging the broken ebuild
with a version bump it is sometimes more advisable to repair the
broken ebuild and increase the integer of -rx instead of replacing
the broken ebuild with a masked one. Very often bugs are filed after
a package has been unmasked and so it is better to have a working
older ebuild.
Of course, this is just a case scenario which may happen. To prevent
such rare cases is in mind of every user. Well, I still think, leave
it up to the users and give them time to choose between ebuilds and
move them to overlay, instead of forcing them to query the source for
dead packages.--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
