[arch-general] very out of date packages
refind-efi has been flagged out of date for 9 months. Are there any packagers who would be willing to take this one over? It is not the most out of date even ... but it's an important component for those who boot with it. There are plenty of others which are also very out of date. I counted over 220 packages marked out of date. Of those nearly 20 were flagged in 2015 or earlier. Some of them have newer versions in AUR; but it would be good to try get at least some of these updated. What's the best way to tackle this issue? -- Gene lists@sapience.com
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Genes Lists via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
refind-efi has been flagged out of date for 9 months. Are there any packagers who would be willing to take this one over?
It is not the most out of date even ... but it's an important component for those who boot with it. There are plenty of others which are also very out of date.
I counted over 220 packages marked out of date. Of those nearly 20 were flagged in 2015 or earlier.
Some of them have newer versions in AUR; but it would be good to try get at least some of these updated.
What's the best way to tackle this issue?
Maybe recruit more TUs, have more TUs overlap in coverage areas (i.e. encourage co-maintainership/co-packagers/teamwork/more than one maintainer per package), and accept TUs that manage fewer packages at a time (to reduce time commitment required per TU).
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ido Rosen <ido@kernel.org> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Genes Lists via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
refind-efi has been flagged out of date for 9 months. Are there any packagers who would be willing to take this one over?
It is not the most out of date even ... but it's an important component for those who boot with it. There are plenty of others which are also very out of date.
I counted over 220 packages marked out of date. Of those nearly 20 were flagged in 2015 or earlier.
Some of them have newer versions in AUR; but it would be good to try get at least some of these updated.
What's the best way to tackle this issue?
Maybe recruit more TUs, have more TUs overlap in coverage areas (i.e. encourage co-maintainership/co-packagers/teamwork/more than one maintainer per package), and accept TUs that manage fewer packages at a time (to reduce time commitment required per TU).
Although, it's worth noting, 220/14800 (<2%) of out of date packages at any given time (and <0.2% badly out of date) isn't that bad...
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 03:19:29PM -0400, Ido Rosen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Ido Rosen <ido@kernel.org> wrote:
Although, it's worth noting, 220/14800 (<2%) of out of date packages at any given time (and <0.2% badly out of date) isn't that bad...
I would argue it is not the raw number or percentage of packages that are out of date, but *which* packages are out of date. For example, I wouldn't place equal weight on pychess as I would glibc.
There's a refind-efi package up on the aur as well.
On Sun, 2016-08-14 at 15:27 -0500, Dutch Ingraham wrote:
I would argue it is not the raw number or percentage of packages that are out of date, but *which* packages are out of date. For example, I wouldn't place equal weight on pychess as I would glibc.
Agree with this completely - some packages in core are more 'tier 1' ... others. We should focus on the more important ones - of which there a small number based on my quick scan. We are a volunteer org and overall things are PDG (pretty damn good) :-) - and we are all very grateful for the time put in by those who are helping making Arch a premier distro. Thank you! gene -- Gene lists@sapience.com
participants (4)
-
Dutch Ingraham
-
Genes Lists
-
Ido Rosen
-
mike lojkovic