In the package net-irc/iip, the Homepage (http://www.invisiblenet.net/iip/) points to a "for sale" parked website. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: run eix net-irc/iip
I went through archive.org's waybackmachine, this is the last valid homepage capture: https://web.archive.org/web/20070928172426/http://www.invisiblenet.net/iip/ sourcefile on sourceforge should still exist.
Thank you for the report here is more information: http://invisibleip.sourceforge.net/iip/
(In reply to Jonas Stein from comment #2) > Thank you for the report > > here is more information: > http://invisibleip.sourceforge.net/iip/ Ah, thanks. I did not spot that one. I don't use the package, I just spotted it while searching the net-irc category, but if there is a need of maintainer, I can take over. I can send in an updated ebuild (in that turn also update the EAPI) soon.
I just tried a first build with libressl EAPI6 update on vanilla gcc amd64 test VM. This already threw some errors. Okay, I could fix those by either writing patches or adopting the package onto my infrastructure and fixing the mistakes. But looking at http://invisibleip.sourceforge.net/iip/aboutMain.php and its features makes me wonder if anyone with security in mind would *really* want to use iip today. Could this be considered so broken that a warning before emerging is necessary? Fixing it would only be a hobbyist approach, there would be no long term maintenance as this would need a serious update, and I think investing too much time in it is the wrong approach, as I already work on other projects (secushare.com, gnunet.org) fixing the problem iip seems to have addressed in th past.
Current WIP of the ebuild: git://n0.is:/testing (overlay with other very wip ebuilds)
Created attachment 434896 [details] iip-1.2-r1
(In reply to Nils Gillmann (ng0) from comment #6) > Created attachment 434896 [details] > iip-1.2-r1 This is the current wip, emerge with libressl on vanilla gcc and you'll see the failure. By the way, what is the policy on dropping packages from portage? In the interest of security I'd vote for not having it in portage anymore, but if it will remain in portage, I'll fix at least the building mistakes.
You can read here about the policy: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Treecleaner/Policy But if you can improve the ebuild, have a look at the proxy-maintainer project.
(In reply to Jonas Stein from comment #8) > You can read here about the policy: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Treecleaner/Policy > > But if you can improve the ebuild, have a look at the proxy-maintainer > project. Thanks, shortly after my last replies here and the dialogue in IRC I wrote the Email to treecleaners.
In this concrete case I agree that I see no need of keeping this in the tree, CCing treecleaners
commit 1dd409073693e8024aaf7a9bf9c3cd8ec6b5ca3a Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: Sun Jun 26 17:00:58 2016 Commit: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> CommitDate: Sun Jun 26 17:00:58 2016 net-irc/iip: Remove last rited package
