On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:09:09 +0530 Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbh...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: > >> I propose that we should be more aggressive about package.masking (for > >> removal) all maintainer-needed packages from the tree by doing that > >> one month after they become maintainer-needed. If someone doesn't > >> volunteer to take care of it, it probably wasn't important anyway. > >> > >> > > Uhm no. The fact that nobody takes care of it doesn't necessarily mean > > that the package is broken and that it should be removed > > > > I never said that such packages were broken. I'm saying that if no one > wants to maintain them, they probably aren't needed by anyone, and we > should clean such cruft from the tree. This is just wrong. If a package is working then it's easy to overlook the fact it has no maintainer. Nor does it need one. When it breaks is when people notice and either fix it or trash it. > If they *are* needed by someone, then those folks should come forward > to maintain it. Good luck with that. :) -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
