On 2018.06.23 09:55, Marty E. Plummer wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:15:06AM +0200, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > > On 23/06/2018 09:43, Mikle Kolyada wrote: > > > But how would it serve gentoo itself? Lots of packages in the > distro > > > have dead upstream but still work. > > > Why would you want to make gentoo an upstream area rather than > moving a > > > dead project itself, say, > > > to github and do the job there? > > > > +1 > > > > I like the idea of taking responsibility for the abandoned packages > that > > are still useful. > > > > It's probably not Gentoo-specific, so a distro-neutral way of > handling > > that seems most appropriate. > > > > It may even be worth it to coordinate with other distros (and maybe > > downstreams) so that the new version becomes a standard. > > > > Finally, having more than one person on this (to help continuity), > and a > > common platform like GitHub also seem very helpful. > > > > Paweł > > > Agreed in general; the problem is getting it started at all; difficult > to get other distros to join if there is nothing to join. > > >
A couple of generalisations. The first solution to unmaintained packages should be to move to an alternative, if that's possible. Gentoo does not have the resource to be upstream for very much for the entire Linux community, a point already made by others. In volunteer groups things get done by those who want to do them. Others join later. I think the quote I'm looking for is "Build it and they will come". -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods
pgpVfuXnGRrnH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
