Mailing List Archive

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:51:55 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> enjoy.
>

Broken list.. Lastrited entire GStreamer 0.8, which includes removal of
some plugins like gst-plugins-dts, not shown here.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

* Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> [07/09/02 17:44 -0600]:
> plan on doing version-specific masks in the future unless someone can
> come up with a good argument for it.

Slots?

Regards, Lars

--
Lars Weiler <pylon@gentoo.org> +49-171-1963258
Instant Messaging : pylon@jabber.ccc.de
Gentoo Linux PowerPC : Developer
Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS/SVN Administrator

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Lars Weiler wrote:
>> * Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> [07/09/02 17:44 -0600]:
>>> plan on doing version-specific masks in the future unless someone can
>>> come up with a good argument for it.
>> Slots?
>
> That's a good argument.

I'm not so sure. The last rites have historically always been for complete
removals of a package from the tree. Is there any reason to change it? Just
removing an older version of a package from the tree is something that happens
all the time. Do we want to clutter up the GWN (as much as it needs content
sometimes) with this unimportant information?

--
Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:11:40 -0500
Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Lars Weiler wrote:
> >> * Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> [07/09/02 17:44 -0600]:
> >>> plan on doing version-specific masks in the future unless someone
> >>> can come up with a good argument for it.
> >> Slots?
> >
> > That's a good argument.
>
> I'm not so sure. The last rites have historically always been for
> complete removals of a package from the tree. Is there any reason to
> change it?

Well, different slots and different packages can be considered to be the
same on many levels. So the removal of all versions for a specific slot
could be seen as the removal of a package in some cases.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

* Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> [07/09/02 19:11 -0500]:
> I'm not so sure. The last rites have historically always been for complete
> removals of a package from the tree. Is there any reason to change it? Just
> removing an older version of a package from the tree is something that
> happens all the time. Do we want to clutter up the GWN (as much as it needs
> content sometimes) with this unimportant information?

Think about apache1, php4, KDE-3, gcc-2.95, etc.

IMHO they are worth being announced in the last rites
section, probably along with a nice upgrade-guide.

Regards, Lars

--
Lars Weiler <pylon@gentoo.org> +49-171-1963258
Instant Messaging : pylon@jabber.ccc.de
Gentoo Linux PowerPC : Developer
Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS/SVN Administrator

> From: news [mailto:news@sea.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hill
> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Last Rites - August 27th -
> September 2nd 2007
>
> If you like I can regenerate the list with them included, but
> I don't plan on doing version-specific masks in the future
> unless someone can come up with a good argument for it.

>> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I'm not so sure. The last rites have historically always been for
>> complete removals of a package from the tree. Is there any reason
>> to change it? Just removing an older version of a package from
>> the tree is something that happens all the time.
>> Do we want to clutter up the GWN (as much as it needs
>> content sometimes) with this unimportant information?

I agree with Andrew, we don't need or want to clutter up the GWN. The last rites
section is for full package removals and at this time we will refrain from the
inclusion of slots/version removals.

I encourage everyone to please think about this from a different perspective.
With every change made to the GWN there are repercussions that the GWN staff
faces. It would be greatly appreciated if discussions to change the GWN include
the GWN team. We are responsive to GWN-feedback emails as well as channel
inquiries in #gentoo-gwn.

Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 07:49 +0200, Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> [07/09/02 19:11 -0500]:
> > I'm not so sure. The last rites have historically always been for complete
> > removals of a package from the tree. Is there any reason to change it? Just
> > removing an older version of a package from the tree is something that
> > happens all the time. Do we want to clutter up the GWN (as much as it needs
> > content sometimes) with this unimportant information?
>
> Think about apache1, php4, KDE-3, gcc-2.95, etc.
>
> IMHO they are worth being announced in the last rites
> section, probably along with a nice upgrade-guide.

No. Things like these should be listed in "Gentoo News" with a nice,
full article. The Last Rites section is supposed to be nothing more
than a list of upcoming package removals. All "important" news should
still be done separately.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:51:55 -0600
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> enjoy.
>>
>
> Broken list.. Lastrited entire GStreamer 0.8, which includes removal of
> some plugins like gst-plugins-dts, not shown here.

From what I understand last rites are for packages being removed, not
versions of packages being removed, which really don't need any masking
at all. So I left out anything in that mask that ended in -0.8*.

If you like I can regenerate the list with them included, but I don't
plan on doing version-specific masks in the future unless someone can
come up with a good argument for it.

--
dirtyepic you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Lars Weiler wrote:
> * Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> [07/09/02 17:44 -0600]:
>> plan on doing version-specific masks in the future unless someone can
>> come up with a good argument for it.
>
> Slots?

That's a good argument.

--
dirtyepic you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Marius Mauch wrote:
> Andrew Gaffney <agaffney@gentoo.org> wrote:

>> I'm not so sure. The last rites have historically always been for
>> complete removals of a package from the tree. Is there any reason to
>> change it?
>
> Well, different slots and different packages can be considered to be the
> same on many levels. So the removal of all versions for a specific slot
> could be seen as the removal of a package in some cases.

I think that in the future if the package(s) are slotted and have been
masked pending later removal I will consider them as last rites. Just
make it clear that this is the case in your package.mask comment since I
usually just ignore everything with a version number on it. ;)


--
dirtyepic you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
gentoo org in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3 5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list