On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbh...@gentoo.org> wrote: > It's really simple: > > (a) If the package has plenty of users, there should be no problems > finding a maintainer or a proxy-maintainer.
Uh, I guess that's why we are flooded with people wanting to be devs... There are lots of high-use packages that could use more maintainers. I'm not aware of any teams that would turn away help. > (b) If the package has few users and is high-maintenance, it's either > already broken, or will get broken soon without a maintainer. Find one > or remove it! If it doesn't build, then it can be removed. Nobody is arguing with that. If you think that someday it might not build, then just wait a few months and if you're right you can satisfy your itch to prune the tree... > (c) If the package has few users and is low-maintenance, package.mask > it so we can figure out who the users are, and we can get them to > proxy-maintain it, it's so little work anyway, right? Uh, package.mask is not intended to be an end-user communication tool. News is slightly better in this respect, but again this is not its purpose. We shouldn't be punishing people for not becoming developers. I don't want to use a distro that throws up warning messages every few months because some package I've been using had its developer retire, and I'm a developer. If it breaks and I care enough about it, I'll rescue it. If I'm passionate about it, I'll step in before it breaks. Holding users ransom is not the solution. > (d) If the package has very few or no users, what the hell is it doing > unmaintained in the tree? It's just eating up disk inodes and space. > Uh, and how much does the inodes, space, and bandwidth consumed by those ~700 m-n packages actually cost. Are we talking about going through wailing and gnashing of teeth so that our stakeholders can save a total of 45 cents worth of disk space across 50 mirrors and 50,000 Gentoo boxes over the next 5 years? If one person is getting use out of it, and nobody is getting hurt, and it costs a few inodes, I'm fine with that. > We all like to boast about how gentoo has 15,000 packages, but we > neglect to mention that more than 1000 of these are either > unmaintained or very poorly maintained. And this is a very > conservative number. I don't know anybody who uses Gentoo because of our huge repository. Sure, compared to LFS it is big. Compared to most major distros, Gentoo isn't all that large. If all somebody wants is a ton of packages they're going to run Debian or whatever. Sure, we have a nice repository and we should be proud of it, but I don't think anybody is trying to over-inflate our repo size just by loading it up with junk. The thing I don't understand here is that there seems to be some perception that having stuff in the tree or in Bugzilla costs us something. Sure, at some level it does, and if 99.99% of portage were junk data, then we might have a problem. However, database records and inodes come billions for the dollar. Having a few percent more churn so that we can more gracefully handle the lifecycle of packages doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. If you're tired of looking at junk when you search bugzilla, then you need to think about how you're searching it. These sorts of arguments come up at work all the time and unless there is some kind of regulatory issue at stake or real loss of revenue associated with lost opportunities, chasing down unnecessary database records to be "tidy" almost always costs far more than it saves. I'd be shocked if the total cost to our sponsors in mirror space for m-n packages exceeded the value of time spent by everybody reading this thread. I think we should be practical - I'm all for giving treecleaners a free hand when packages really cause problems, but being anal-retentive just for the sake of doing so doesn't seem to create real value. Rich
