Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles

[Justin Sherrill <justin%shiningsilence.com@localhost>]

There have been periodic emails for packages that have been broken for
a long time/have no maintainer/don't support DESTDIR.  They stay if
someone wants them.  Otherwise, they go.

Would it hurt to say, "these are going to go by x quarterly release
unless someone needs them"?



On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:26 PM, John Marino
<mfl-commissioner%marino.st@localhost> wrote:
>
>
> On 5/20/2012 18:00, Edgar Fuß wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue is the combination of non-redistributable and missing from
>>> upstream.
>>
>> Well, then call it DISTFILE_UNAVAILABLE or whatever.
>>
>>> Note: the package is only useful for users who *already* have the
>>> distfile
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>>
>> My impression was that most of the people would like those packages go
>> away (they're of no use to them, they break bulk builds, they get asked why
>> the distfile isn't available) while a few people would like it to stay
>> because they do have the distfile.
>> So why don't keep the package and mark it as "this is only useful to you
>> if you somehow do have the distfile"?
>
>
>
>
> Or just make a stand and tell those lucky few with the distfile to keep
> their own copy of the package makefiles along with the distfile (and those
> are always retrievable through CVS).  I don't understand this need to cater
> to the minority.  This packrat/hoarding approach is messy - prune these
> essentially dead packages already.
>
> John