[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Packages with non-distributable distfiles
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
> On 5/20/2012 18:00, Edgar Fuß wrote:
>>> The issue is the combination of non-redistributable and missing from
>> Well, then call it DISTFILE_UNAVAILABLE or whatever.
>>> Note: the package is only useful for users who *already* have the
>> 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.
Main Index |
Thread Index |