On 11/4/20 11:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Did you consider that somebody could read your email and not actually > agree with you? Impossible! My suggestion is about keeping the tree clean and to provide the best user experience. Who'd disagree with that?!
Sure the methods for achieving that can be discussed, but if I find ~50 % of current live-only packages being unbuildable, don't you agree there's a problem with them? And regardless the outcome of this policy suggestion, I've filed 14 bugs to maintainers notifying their -9999-only packages aren't working. > 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. One of the selling points to this policy suggestion is that they'd get CI coverage, which they currently don't. Why keep dead weight around for years that apparently no one uses, not even the maintainer themself. > 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. I'm saying currently maintainers aren't doing very good job at maintaining them, and no one else uses/finds these packages. -- juippis
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
