[clc-devel] httpup repositories and unmaintained (next try) [long]
danm at gmx.li
Sat Aug 21 21:52:23 UTC 2004
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:54:39 +0300 (EEST)
Jukka Heino <vector at pp.nic.fi> wrote:
> Maybe we should more actively recruit new CLC members instead of
> creating a sort of pseudo-CLC? I'm not bashing the idea, I'm just
> wondering how much duplication of tasks this would cause.
I would appreciate new CLC members.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:59:44 +0200
Johannes Winkelmann <jw at tks6.net> wrote:
> What I'd like to suggest differs a bit from my httpup mirror service
> proposal I wrote to crux@ a while ago and is rather what Jay Dolan
> suggested: Create a new httpup collection, called 'people'
The 'people' collection might be a good idea, but we should consider the
security aspect. I mean, do you trust in everybodys ports ? By running a
simple 'prt-get install <portname>' you can easily invite Harry H4cker.
> Most important, this would change the meaning of unmaintained:
> 'unmaintained' would mean that there's no CLC maintainer and no httpup
> maintainer looking after the port.
I'd be happy to get rid of 'unmaintained'. Most ports are poorly
out-dated - or - simply don't work (which is even worse). We don't need
to delete those ports - in my opinion 'unmaintained' shouldn't be
activated in clc.cvsup by default.
I remember that we used to have an 'unstable' tree some time ago. A lot
of us are using 'special' ports which don't really fit into 'contrib'.
For example, I've made an RPM port which is definitely not a candidate
for 'contrib' :-) but I take care of version updates. Robert's udev
is(/was) another example - many people are currently using it - but it's
in unmaintained because Robert doesn't think it's stable enough. So, if
we decide to revive 'unstable' I would place special stuff there.
Berlin, Germany (OpenPGP: 1024D/126EC290)
More information about the crux-devel