On 03/13/2010 12:34 PM, Matti Bickel wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> if a package is broken, and been in treecleaners queue for too long, and
>> it would be a semi-trivial fix, it simply doesn't get done without manpower
>
> Because i can't find this info on the treecleaner project page: is the
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:34:22 +0100
Matti Bickel wrote:
> I have found 4 bugs assigned to treeclea...@gentoo.org, but i'm sure i
> missed something.
>
If you have time to spare, bugs assigned to maintainer-needed@ and
often rotting in bugzilla for ages despite having patches included will
give y
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> if a package is broken, and been in treecleaners queue for too long, and
> it would be a semi-trivial fix, it simply doesn't get done without manpower
Because i can't find this info on the treecleaner project page: is there
a bugzilla query for the "treecleaners queue", so
On 03/13/2010 01:07 AM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>> On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
>>> consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
>
On 13 March 2010 00:07, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree. That's
>> why we have a treecleaners project.
>
> The treecleaners project is tasked with keeping these packages working, and
> removing the
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:33:12 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 12 March 2010 16:59, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Or like the old gtk-1: completely abandon the package and let the
> > consumers upgrade slowly. IMHO this is the less annoying approach for
> > everyone.
>
> Abandoned packages do not belo
