[arch-dev-public] rc.d files, unmaintained packages - and the quality of our repositories

[Ionut Biru]

On 07/16/2013 02:39 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2013-07-16 13:12:19 +0200] Thomas Bächler:
>> However, now netcfg has been readded to community in the exact same
>> state as the package that was originally removed:
>>
>> * It does not work properly with systemd.
>> * There is no init system in our repositories that it works with.
>> * It actually re-added rc.d files to our repositories, although we had a
>> TODO list recently to explicitly remove those (and btw, they depend on
>> files that no longer exist in our repositories, like /etc/rc.d/functions
>> and /etc/rc.conf).
>>
>> I am really confused about the decision to re-add this and I am
>> seriously considering if we should talk about stricter guidelines for
>> adding packages and - in particular - the quality of our packages.
> 
> I doubt guidelines would help. It should be pretty obvious to any
> responsible packager that re-adding a deprecated package violating
> recent TODO lists is a bad idea. If we really need to spell this out
> (with an exhaustive list of obvious things responsible developers should
> not do), then we have bigger problems.
> 
> In this particular case, we should hear what Connor has to say and make
> sure (one way or another) that this type of problem will not happen
> again.
> 

Release the Kraken!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OlCnPKr4Q8

-- 
Ionuț

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20130716/d5d55d2d/attachment.asc>