Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100
Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period
as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1].
Although it can be considered working already, I'd like to polish it
a little and implement the basic feature set before the first release.
[1] http://github.com/mgorny/flaggie
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
11-03-2010, 01:29 PM
Tomáš Chvátal
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dne 3.11.2010 14:48, Michał Górny napsal(a):
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100
> Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
>
> If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period
> as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1].
>
> Although it can be considered working already, I'd like to polish it
> a little and implement the basic feature set before the first release.
>
> [1] http://github.com/mgorny/flaggie
>
And why the heck you are not working on making it part of gentoolkit +
equery (the same way i incorporated eshowkw).
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:29:42 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> And why the heck you are not working on making it part of gentoolkit +
> equery (the same way i incorporated eshowkw).
Because I dislike the all-in-one packaging idea. Separate development
allows me to use git and make releases whenever it is necessary,
without re-releasing all the unchanged tools.
In other words, why the heck we are not working on replacing split X11
ebuilds into one large xf86 or why the heck we are working on
monolithic KDE ebuilds?
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
Just wondering, why did you abuse classes that badly and hack way
through optparse? If it limits your needs you might want to take a look
at argparse.
Domen
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 14:48 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 08:32:07 +0100
> Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
>
> If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period
> as I'm currently working on a replacement script, called flaggie [1].
>
> Although it can be considered working already, I'd like to polish it
> a little and implement the basic feature set before the first release.
>
> [1] http://github.com/mgorny/flaggie
>
11-03-2010, 02:55 PM
Michał Górny
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:41:46 +0100
Domen Kožar <domen@dev.si> wrote:
> Just wondering, why did you abuse classes that badly and hack way
> through optparse? If it limits your needs you might want to take a
> look at argparse.
With classes, I hope to clean that up a little soon. My ideas changed
a little during the project development (especially that it was started
some time ago already and left unmaintained for a while) and first I'd
like to make everything working and then start cleaning up what will
remain unclean.
And for argparse, I wasn't aware of it when the option parsing code was
written. And right now, I still don't see a reason to use it.
Especially that I would need to care about additional dependencies for
python:2.6.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
11-05-2010, 07:56 AM
Torsten Veller
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
* Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>:
> Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
>
> If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal period
Longer than the typical 30 days?
Alternatively I can move the packages from the perl herd to
maintainer-needed and we wait until the replacement is finished...
--
Regards Torsten
11-05-2010, 10:42 AM
Michał Górny
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:56:44 +0100
Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
> * Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>:
> > Torsten Veller <tove@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > If nobody is interested, I'll mask them for removal in one week.
> >
> > If nobody is interested indeed, I'd appreciate a longer removal
> > period
>
> Longer than the typical 30 days?
Ah, I misunderstood 'one week' there. 30 days are completely fine, and
if that week meant the time before the mask is applied, I think I'll be
able to do at least a pre-release to fill in the mask description.
Maintainer needed for app-portage/flagedit app-portage/profuse dev-util/libconf
