Re: Disappearing packages from wip : what is the policy

[Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost>]

Am 17.09.2024 um 08:36 schrieb Mayuresh:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 07:51:45AM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
>> Can you give some specific examples?
>
> Last year's one example was wip/antlr (incidentally it's gone once again)
>
> wip/py-chemlab
> wip/py-chempy
> wip/py-chemview
>
> Asking for objections before removal on the list could be an advisable
> process.

Indeed, I should have done that. To me, the outdated distinfo was such a
clear sign that a package would be unmaintained that I didn't consider a
heads-up message. When I tried the packages with outdated checksums,
each of them was missing its upstream distfile, that's why I took it for
granted that any such package would be useless to someone who doesn't
already have all the distfiles downloaded.

Thank you that you restored the packages yourself. I'll have a second
look if there are more packages that I missed, such as antlr, which
besides still mentioning RMD160 instead of BLAKE2s in the distinfo file,
was still buildable.

> Otherwise I think I'll need to keep them in a personal repository and soft
> link under wip. But that limits their easy availability to other potential
> users.

That's not necessary.

Roland