Re: [fink-core] EOL plans for 10.2-gcc3.3

[Dave V. <va...@us...>]

On May 21, 2005, at 11:52 AM, David R. Morrison wrote:
> I guess what I think we should be doing in terms of EOL for 10.2- 
> gcc3.3
> is to decide at some point that we won't update the fink package  
> manager
> any more in that tree.  Aside from that, though, I think that  
> leaving the
> tree in place for the use of those that want to use it, makes sense.

I would suggest that we also make fink warn that it is discontinued.  
Maybe make a MinDist configuration item which defaults to 10.3, and  
then warn every launch if the current dist is less than MinDist. The  
user can then set MinDist in their fink.conf to indicate to fink that  
they consider themselves duly warned.

Our security policy might have to be modified to specify that we give  
no guarantees for unmaintained trees.

> I also think it would make sense to authorize some people to make  
> modifications
> there (of any package they liked) so that the 10.2-gcc3.3 user  
> community
> could take responsibility for their own tree if they cared to do so.
>
> What we should do, though, is to think of a mechanism by which it  
> can be
> made clear that the original package maintainers no longer have  
> responsibility
> for the 10.2-gcc3.3 versions of their packages.  If anybody has any
> suggestions along those lines, I would love to hear them.

What about setting up a fink-legacy mailing list? Let someone who  
cares about 10.2-gcc3.3 manage the list. Replace the maintainer for  
most packages in 10.2-gcc3.3 with "No longer supported - Fink Legacy  
<list>", unless the maintainer wants to maintain it. Maybe mandate  
that even those maintainers be prefixed with "No longer supported".

> It also might be nice if there were a way, when opting for "CVS" as  
> the
> update method, to limit one's CVS checkout to a specified list of  
> trees.

It would be reasonably easy to only update the tree currently in-use.  
Is that what you want?

Dave