# Diego E. Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org> (24 Dec 2009)
# on behalf of QA team
#
# Fails to build if /usr/X11R6 is not present (bug #247737,
# open November 2008).
#
# Removal on 2010-02-22
media-gfx/viewer

>>>>> "Diego" == Diego E Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> writes:

Diego> # Fails to build if /usr/X11R6 is not present (bug #247737,

A bit trivial of an issue to drop a package, ja?

The QA team should generate more patches and fewer kills.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

On 12/25/2009 09:43 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>> "Diego" == Diego E Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Diego> # Fails to build if /usr/X11R6 is not present (bug #247737,
>
> A bit trivial of an issue to drop a package, ja?
>
> The QA team should generate more patches and fewer kills.

Manpower. Feel free to join up and help. A handful of people can't fix
everything. If it's broken, it shouldn't be in tree, simple as that.

-Samuli

James Cloos wrote:

"Diego" == Diego E Petten� <flameeyes@gmail.com> writes:


Diego> # Fails to build if /usr/X11R6 is not present (bug #247737,

A bit trivial of an issue to drop a package, ja?

The QA team should generate more patches and fewer kills.

-JimC


Also, where is the removal notice on bugzilla? I was going to create a
version bump bug that blocked the removal bug but it didn't exist. In
this case, not only did the QA team not create a (seemingly trivial)
patch, but they didn't even follow standard package removal protocol.


-Jeremy

On 12/25/2009 10:41 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> James Cloos wrote:
>>>>>>> "Diego" == Diego E Petten� <flameeyes@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> Diego> # Fails to build if /usr/X11R6 is not present (bug #247737,
>>
>> A bit trivial of an issue to drop a package, ja?
>>
>> The QA team should generate more patches and fewer kills.
>>
>> -JimC
>
> Also, where is the removal notice on bugzilla? I was going to create a
> version bump bug that blocked the removal bug but it didn't exist. In
> this case, not only did the QA team not create a (seemingly trivial)
> patch, but they didn't even follow standard package removal protocol.
>
> -Jeremy
>

Standard package removal protocol doesn't mandate opening a removal bug.
Treecleaner policy may but that's specific to them.

Regards,
Petteri

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:29:39 +0100
Diego E. Pettenò <flameeyes@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> # Diego E. Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org> (24 Dec 2009)
> # on behalf of QA team
> #
> # Fails to build if /usr/X11R6 is not present (bug #247737,
> # open November 2008).
> #
> # Removal on 2010-02-22
> media-gfx/viewer

Oh, I fixed it in under five minutes, including stereoscopic viewing
time (admittedly without the use of the required goggles). Feel free to
CC me on bugs related to this package if you find any more pressing
issues.


jer

>>>>> "Samuli" == Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> writes:

>> The QA team should generate more patches and fewer kills.

Samuli> Manpower. Feel free to join up and help. A handful of people
Samuli> can't fix everything.

It would have taken him less effort to fix the bug and commit a new
ebuild when he first saw it than it must have taken to file a bug
report and then, months later, kill the package.

And if he doesn't want to be the one to fix it, it is better to just
leave it alone.

Samuli> If it's broken, it shouldn't be in tree, simple as that.

As a user, I can only say bullshit to that.

Packages should not go away over trivial issues. That is harmful,
not helpful.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dne 27.12.2009 19:32, James Cloos napsal(a):
> As a user, I can only say bullshit to that.
>
> Packages should not go away over trivial issues. That is harmful,
> not helpful.
That is big false, we can fix it for one time but when it is broken for
long period and we fix it there is 99 certainity that package will end
up on QA list again because noone else would care about it, so if noone
maintains it and it is broken for a quite while its preffered to remove
it and maybe readd it back when someone again became interested in it

Also we are all volunteers and you are acting like you feel we don't
provide what you want. In that case easiest solution is to stop whining
and join some gentoo project to help up with maintaining stuff. We have
dozens of weak areas so it is quite possible some of them might attract you.

If you feel like you don't have time for doing so, we don't have it
neither we are already maintaining quite lot stuff ourselves and trying
to make whole tree compilable is addition to it.

- --------
Tomáš Chvátal
Gentoo Linux Developer [KDE/Overlays/QA/X11]
E-Mail : scarabeus@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 94A4 5CCD 85D3 DE24 FE99 F924 1C1E 9CDE 0341 4587
GnuPG ID : 03414587
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAks33U0ACgkQHB6c3gNBRYdwFwCgyzAJYCSIcR 6u1z2p3dNOA4WG
v3AAni2AZW9swVRpMVJAknQo+cF2/rDn
=XkWy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> said:
[snip]
> Feel free to
> CC me on bugs related to this package if you find any more pressing
> issues.

the standard way of indicating such an interest is to add yourself to
metadata.xml.

kind regards
Thilo

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:33:42 +0100
Thilo Bangert <bangert@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> said:
> [snip]
> > Feel free to
> > CC me on bugs related to this package if you find any more pressing
> > issues.
>
> the standard way of indicating such an interest is to add yourself to
> metadata.xml.

I've known that for about five years now. What's your point?


jer