On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Michał Górny wrote: > >> In fact, they did remove ebuilds from the tree in the past for this >> reason [1]. > > Given that this was a live ebuild that failed to compile [2] and was > dumped onto the games team few weeks after it was committed to the > tree [3], I can even understand their reaction, in this particular > case.
I'm talking about the removal of 1.0 3 weeks ago, not the removal of the live ebuild 2 years ago. I don't know if the new maintainer was aware that the package had previously been removed, but I'm not sure that it really matters. As long as the maintainer actually intended to maintain it I think that matters more. If the package had security issues/etc that would be a different matter. The 1.0 package was not a live ebuild, either. Removing packages that are live ebuilds that have no maintainer and a dying upstream is a bit different from removing packages that are not live ebuilds that do have a maintainer, even if upstream isn't necessarily better off. In any case, the maintainer certainly should have been consulted. I'd encourage anybody re-introducing a package to also try to talk to those involved with removing it, but it might not be obvious if an obscure package had been removed two years in the past. Uh, and what is up with games-strategy/openxcom and games-engines/openxcom? Was the re-introduction a dup? If so, then removal of it makes sense, though for that reason, and not simply because it was added without talking to the games herd... Rich
