On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 3:57 PM Joonas Niilola <juip...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On 11/4/20 10:43 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Do you really think that users who just blindly run "emerge > > --autounmask-write" are going to be both masking and unmasking > > packages by hand (per your other email)? > Just by following wiki... > > > > > And how are they any better off if they do? They just end up in the > > exact same state, except now we have zero control over their > > experience instead of only a little control. > Exactly, we should try to prevent this situation! Glad we agree. >
Great, then no need to remove working packages that only have live versions. Just add snapshots where appropriate. > > > > Then why not do that, instead of removing things? > Did you bother reading my reply? Did you consider that somebody could read your email and not actually agree with you? > There's work being done towards fixing > packages which seem to have hope. Now for some of these packages there's > been last upstream activity 8 years ago. Is having a -9999 ebuild > justified there? Does it work? If so, then there is no harm. If not, then just remove it - you don't need a new policy to treeclean stuff that doesn't work. > Also for some, upstream is dead, gone, making the > package totally un-emergeable. Then treeclean it. Again, no need for a new policy here. Stuff that doesn't build is already grounds for removal if it isn't fixed in a timely manner. > Now imagine if we had a snapshot tarball > in our mirrors, maybe it wouldn't need to be removed, if it still could > be built. Stuff that has no working SRC_URI still should be removed. By all means create your own upstream for it if you wish. Removing that package years ago wouldn't have done anything to make a snapshot available. You're saying that live-only packages should be removed because they could have snapshots. I'm saying that if you want to maintain a snapshot just add it and co-maintain - you don't have to remove packages that don't have them. -- Rich
