Re: Disappearing packages from wip : what is the policy

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost> writes:

>> 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 To me, the outdated distinfo was such a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 When I tried the packages with outdated checksums,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.

I think that's the wrong judgement in wip.

The question is not whether some user could successfully build and use
the package, but whether the partial work towards a package (or work
that has decayed) is more useful than nothing, and how it compares to
the pain of having a directory in wip.

> 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.

Dropping RMD160 as a bulk edit seems fine, vs removing packages.

>> 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.

It seems it sort of was, this time.