| 1 |
On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA512 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: |
| 6 |
> > - gpg control packet |
| 7 |
> > All, |
| 8 |
> > [..] |
| 9 |
> > Thanks! |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> Hi Dane, |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you |
| 16 |
> understand why that effort did not succeed |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers |
| 21 |
only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a |
| 22 |
problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy |
| 23 |
maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal |
| 24 |
to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. |
| 25 |
So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if |
| 28 |
there were other concerns. |
Archives