On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 07:29:35 PM Raymond Jennings wrote: > > I still use bopm, and it built fine last time I emerged it. > > > > If hopm isn't in the tree yet, why was bopm still pmasked for removal? > > > > Reason for asking is I'm curious about removal procedures. I was under > the > > impression that replacement packages get added to the tree before their > > obsolete predecessors get pmasked for booting out. > > > > And if that's not the case, should it be? > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=473754 > > has a bug noting why bopm is being removed. It was mentioned in there that > hopm isn't in tree, sure. It's also mentioned that bopm's default > configuration > doesn't really do anything, as it depends on a service that was shuttered > back > in 2013. (If I read the bug report correctly.) > Interestingly I'm the one who filed that bug and also mentioned that its replacement wasn't in tree yet. However, note that in that bug, bopm is listed has not having a maintainer > in > Gentoo...no dev (or volunteer) is maintaining it. Without a maintainer, > there's nobody with access who's motivated to add hopm. > > If you'd like to see hopm in the tree, you care more about it than any of > the > current devs. Which means you should probably look at > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers and see about > becoming > a proxy maintainer for it. > I've already done that for bopm, and thanks to Soap I was able to fix a buttload of problems with the old ebuild while I was at it. I think considering that bopm is still in active use in general (I've seen at least two other popular IRC networks using it), I'll just keep maintaining it until it breaks...or at least until hopm is in tree. > -- > :wq
