On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 18:33:35 +0300 Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:11:45 -0500 William Hubbs wrote: > > I'm starting a new thread so this will be a completely separate > > discussion. > > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 05:56:04PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:42:14 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile > > > > <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages > > > > > should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are > > > > > not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to > > > > > p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I > > > > > remove them from the tree in 30 days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not. Not whether > > > > upstream is more or less active. > > > > > > > > If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them. However, > > > > if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in > > > > the repo, then they should probably stay. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Andrew Savchenko > > > > There is also an overlay for packages that are removed from the official > > tree [1], and imo that is where old software should go if it doesn't > > have an active maintainer. > > > > I don't know why we haven't been using this, but using it more than we > > have makes a lot of sense. > > When software is in the main tree, it is a subject of tree-wide > changes like GLEP 67 update, package moves and so on. In a > separated overlay it will be completely abandoned and it may create > inter-overlay dependencies issues (e.g. when A is an old > package from the tree and package B from some overlay depends on A, > so if A will move to graveyard, B will be broken). And that is the exact problem. As long as it's in Gentoo, it creates work for others. Others who have enough work already without your help, thank you. There is a major difference between doing a global changes involving few dozen or hundred packages when they are maintained, and having few dozen more unmaintained packages to care for. The changes already require a lot of effort, you know. Now, there's a significant difference between lastriting unmaintained packages at treecleaner's leisure and having a clean tree to work on, and having to figure out how many of the packages blocking some global change are unmaintained and if they can be cleaned, and cleaning them while doing something completely different, then checking again, then... > I completely do not understand why having "old" software in tree is > a problem, if such software have no serious issues and is not > blocking major progress. If software _is_ sufficiently broken, then > indeed move it to graveyard. Right now, we have over 1500 unmaintained packages. Please tell me, how that speaks of Gentoo? Because as far as I can see, we have 1500 packages which nobody looks after unless forced to. You say that there are no bugs in those packages. How do you know? You don't know unless you test it, and no maintainer means nobody is known to test it regularly. The package can be pretty much completely broken and we'll not know unless someone tests it. Now, as long as package is in ::gentoo it is somehow officially supported. Which means it pops up for user when he is looking for something, and he assumes it's going to solve his problem. This is good if it works. But considering it's unmaintained, nobody's testing it. So the package might work, or it might not. It might have major problems but nobody may notice them before user learns about them the hard way. If he reports a bug, the bug goes to /dev/null, unless some developer accidentally notices it and decides to fix it. Or just lastrite the package. Let me summarize the user experience. User was looking for a good tool. Instead, he found a well-advertised unmaintained old piece of software that promised to solve his problems and instead created more problems for him. Nevertheless, he decided to be a good user and reported the bug. Then he learned that nobody cares to fix the bug, the package is long forgotten, and all his effort was for nothing. Then he has to look for an alternative... and he starts to wonder how to filter out those unmaintained packages because he'd rather use something that somebody has really tested in the last 5 years. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgp8CsLSWOWQU.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
