Miwa Susumu <miwarin%gmail.com@localhost> writes: >> Can you explain a bit more about how you are deciding to remove things? >> >> In pkgsrc proper, removal of packages is almost always preceded by a >> note to the list proposing to remove, and the criteria are more or less: >> >> - upstream package is really not maintained >> >> - upstream package is so out of date that nobody should run it >> >> - it is believed that there are almost no users, or it is so unwise to >> run it that we are comfortable telling anybody running it that they >> are out of luck, without understanding their situation > > First. check if MASTER_SITE is not found. > Next. I google file name of the package, if it can not be found, I > delete the package. > > For example.some package MASTER_SITE is not found. > but I google file name of the package, I can found other site.(e.g. github) > In that case I don't remove package. I will change the package > MASTER_SITE etc at a later date. OK - that seems reasonable enough in wip, for wip entries that have not been changed in a long time. Often people continue to use programs that have vanished upstreams, and we host the distfiles on ftp.netbsd.org. So the test is not just upstream gone, but upstream long gone and/or we are sure somehow that nobody cares. Packages without an update in 10 years, no current MASTER_SITE/HOMEPAGE, and no MAINTAINER certainly ought to be deleted. 5 years probably, 1 year, probably not. >> Also, some people do package proprietary software, so restricted >> downloads are a normal case and not cause for removal. (I sent you a >> private note asking for a revert of the removal of a package with a >> download link.) > > Thanks. > That's mistake. I saw the revert - thanks. Of course, it could be that the software is also obsolete and really nobody cares, but a package being in wip doesn't cost much and is the standard place to put packages that only 1 or 2 people care about. >> In general, I do think it is good to clean up cruft. The hard question >> is what exactly is cruft, vs useful to someone. So I'm just asking for >> a little more clarity about your process, given that you are into "large >> scale changes" territory. > > Thanks advice. > > I will run pbulk at a later date and plan to fix the package that > caused the error. > It may only modify the Makefile, or it may delete the package. > > and I will communicate MAINTAINER before remove package. Thanks. (Of course, pkgsrc-users@ means there is none.) If MAINTAINER doensn't bounce, they may be able to tell you that the package really is useless, or they might know something. The LICENSE update and this cleanup really is useful, so I don't mean to ask you not to do it. I was just nervous about what appeared to be a large-scale semi-mechanical deletion. Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature