[clc-devel] unmaintained; next try
Hi there, As you might know many packages in unmaintained are outdated or even non-functional. Some of them have never versions in httpup repositories. We keep getting bug reports against those unmaintained ports, which means that some of us have to look after those ports (or defer the bug reports). I've been discussing with Juergen what the goal of CLC is; the choices were: 1. Have ports which we actively maintain 2. Have ports which seem important for a linux distribution The initial goal of CLC was to do the first of the two; as a consequence of this, we should not serve ports we don't maintain actively. Some time ago, having a collection like clc/unstable or unmaintained made sense since there was no alternative way to share ports. This is not the case anymore, and we could go back to follow goal #1 again. There is a certain need for ports which are "not quite ready" for contrib but are maintained by us. I'd therefore propose to drop unmaintained and start a new collection called 'testing'; ports which require further testing (both when the port or the ported software isn't stable) go there, but it should be our goal to move it to contrib or remove it altogether. 'testing' shouldn't be consider a permanent place for ports. Either they're fine for CLC, or they're not. Note that this would mean that we wouldn't have GNOME in our tree anymore, since rrm3 isn't around. IMO this would be the right consequence when a maintainer leaves, and we shouldn't try to keep the ports around but to find a new maintainer for them. Riders of Rohan, eerm, maintainers from CLC, Please discuss, comment or at least state whether you are in favor or against this step. Best regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
Hi, On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 13:04:37 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [...]
Note that this would mean that we wouldn't have GNOME in our tree anymore, since rrm3 isn't around. IMO this would be the right consequence when a maintainer leaves, and we shouldn't try to keep the ports around but to find a new maintainer for them. Clarification: The wording was a bit unfortunate; what I mean is: We should try to keep the ports around without having someone looking after them. If they are important, we should either find someone to look after them or do it ourselfs (become the maintainer for them); otherwise, we should drop them.
Best regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
Oh well, On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 13:10:32 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 13:04:37 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [...]
Note that this would mean that we wouldn't have GNOME in our tree anymore, since rrm3 isn't around. IMO this would be the right consequence when a maintainer leaves, and we shouldn't try to keep the ports around but to find a new maintainer for them. Clarification: The wording was a bit unfortunate; what I mean is: We should try to keep the ports around without having someone looking after them. "We shouldn't..."
I'll double check my next correction mail, promised ;-) Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
On 09/10/04 13:04 Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi there,
Hi,
There is a certain need for ports which are "not quite ready" for contrib but are maintained by us. I'd therefore propose to drop unmaintained and start a new collection called 'testing'; ports which require further testing (both when the port or the ported software isn't stable) go there, but it should be our goal to move it to contrib or remove it altogether. 'testing' shouldn't be consider a permanent place for ports. Either they're fine for CLC, or they're not.
Fine for me; it would be nice to have a collection slightly more....maintained than unmaintained. As you suggested I think that the 'testing' collection should be considered a temp thing, maybe without strict rules but with an approx. implicitly accepted expiration time (1 month?).
Note that this would mean that we wouldn't have GNOME in our tree anymore, since rrm3 isn't around. IMO this would be the right consequence when a maintainer leaves, and we shouldn't try to keep the ports around but to find a new maintainer for them.
Riders of Rohan, eerm, maintainers from CLC, Please discuss, comment or at least state whether you are in favor or against this step.
I support the proposal. So far I think we've got a quite solid port repository for CRUX (base + opt + contrib); solving the problems of ports nobody maintains and ports not ready for prime time would certainly improve the quality of the CLC offer (that sounds like marketing blurbs). From the other side I see a little more work for maintainers (it is possible that most used unmaintained ports will end up in contrib), but it's OK for me. Regards, Simone. -- Simone Rota WEB : http://www.varlock.com Bergamo, Italy MAIL: sip@varlock.com
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:04:37 +0200 Johannes Winkelmann <jw@tks6.net> wrote:
[..] ports. This is not the case anymore, and we could go back to follow goal #1 again. [..]
Drop unmaintained :-) I'd be happy to get rid of it. The testing tree is a good idea. bye, danm -- Daniel Mueller Berlin, Germany (OpenPGP: 1024D/126EC290)
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Daniel Mueller wrote:
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:04:37 +0200 Johannes Winkelmann <jw@tks6.net> wrote:
[..] ports. This is not the case anymore, and we could go back to follow goal #1 again. [..]
Drop unmaintained :-)
I'd be happy to get rid of it. The testing tree is a good idea.
I second that. /Per
will there still be a way to get ahold of those ports? i use a couple of them. i suppose i'll maintain them in my own repository if it comes to that. have a good one, tony -- * * * Anthony de Almeida Lopes guerrilla_thought@gmx.de AIM: whatsheon * * * "And someone else might feel something scratching in his mouth. he goes to the mirror opens his mouth: and his tongue is an enormous, live centipede, rubbing its legs together and scraping his palate. He'd like to spit it out, but the centipede is part of him and he will to tear it out with his own hands..." -- Jean Paul Sartre * * * Superg�nstige DSL-Tarife + WLAN-Router f�r 0,- EUR* Jetzt zu GMX wechseln und sparen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl
Hi CLC maintainers, On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:04:37PM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [...]
I'd therefore propose to drop unmaintained and start a new collection called 'testing';
Yep, I think that's the way to go.
Note that this would mean that we wouldn't have GNOME in our tree anymore, since rrm3 isn't around. IMO this would be the right consequence when a maintainer leaves, and we shouldn't try to keep the ports around but to find a new maintainer for them.
Yes, it is. But we shouldn't delete all unmaintained ports from cvs, but simply remove the UNMAINTAINED tag, so it's easy for CLC maintainer to adopt ports again. At all, this will be a remarkable change in the CLC structure, so more comments from other maintainers are desirable. And, please, look again through the unmaintained collection, maybe one or another port will find its way to contrib. thanks in advance and kind regards Jürgen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
Hi CLC maintainers,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:04:37PM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
[...] [...] Yes, it is. But we shouldn't delete all unmaintained ports from cvs, but simply remove the UNMAINTAINED tag, so it's easy for CLC maintainer to adopt ports again. Yeah, definitely. I think we should even write a short wiki page describing how to get them so interested packagers can start quickly;
Hi, On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 13:12:18 +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote: this would probable mean to just provide a clc-complete.cvsup file.
At all, this will be a remarkable change in the CLC structure, so more comments from other maintainers are desirable. agreed
And, please, look again through the unmaintained collection, maybe one or another port will find its way to contrib. While we should do this from time to time anyway, we should have an extra close look at the ports from unmaintained once we decide to remove the tag; collect a list of ports to be dropped in the wiki and have people go through it, removing those they want to maintain.
Kind regards, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@tks6.net Bern, Switzerland http://jw.tks6.net
Johannes Winkelmann <jw@tks6.net> [2004-09-10 16:24]:
contrib but are maintained by us. I'd therefore propose to drop unmaintained and start a new collection called 'testing'; ports which require further testing (both when the port or the ported software isn't stable) go there, but it should be our goal to move it to contrib or remove it altogether. 'testing' shouldn't be consider a permanent place for ports. Either they're fine for CLC, or they're not.
I like the idea. I'll look through unmaintained now and see whether there are any ports that I could maintain, there are quite a few in there that would be sad to loose. -- Regards, Tilman
participants (7)
-
Anthony de Almeida Lopes -
Daniel Mueller -
Johannes Winkelmann -
Juergen Daubert -
Per Liden -
Simone Rota -
Tilman Sauerbeck