| 1 |
On Monday 14 April 2003 00:25, Brad Laue wrote: |
| 2 |
> Given the increasing size of the portage tree I'm becoming concerned |
| 3 |
> about the rate at which ebuilds move from the unstable ~arch keyword to |
| 4 |
> the stable one. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
correct, same here. |
| 7 |
Additionally there are many ebuilds in the tree that should be removed |
| 8 |
again...for example most of the game mods (not because I don't like gamers |
| 9 |
just because e.g. osp for quake3 isn't maintained although quite some time |
| 10 |
passed already since the last osp release(s) and in a multiplayer game it's |
| 11 |
useless to have an old version of something ;) |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Has a formalized process been discussed for this? The first thing that |
| 14 |
> comes to mind is a set of tinderboxes designed to build packages with |
| 15 |
> predictable flags sending reports to each ebuild maintainer. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Problem: Gentoo doesn't have maintainers ! |
| 18 |
It has been discussed to introduce a MAINTAINER="xxxx@g.o" thing in the |
| 19 |
ebuilds but it seems like the idea got dropped by the core developers (or |
| 20 |
didn't even get attention, I don't know). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The only real maintainer is carpaski for portage, most other packages are |
| 23 |
worked on by more or less "Freelancers"... |
| 24 |
Sure, many people are related to something, but you can't see who is the |
| 25 |
maintainer of a certain package. |
| 26 |
Just imagine...there are some packages where version 0.1 was submitted by dev |
| 27 |
A, 0.2 by dev B and 0.2.1 by dev C and 0.3 again by dev B etc. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Not, that this is bad at all, but it would be much better to have "real" |
| 30 |
maintainers like almost every other distribution has, too. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> The second is more practical and within reach; advocacy of |
| 33 |
> stable.gentoo.org, and a policy of accepting a package as stable when |
| 34 |
> five or more users have vouched for it and two weeks have passed without |
| 35 |
> a bug report. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
stable.gentoo.org is _great_ ! Thanks so much to blizzy (unfortunatly he's not |
| 38 |
in the dev team any more). The problem here is that this site must be pushed |
| 39 |
quite hard because there are packages in the tree only a few people use and |
| 40 |
if those people don't use stable.gentoo.org they won't be stable anytime soon |
| 41 |
or might - in a bad case - be pushed into stable because nobody complain |
| 42 |
although it's just because nobody uses stable.gentoo.org |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Rainer Groesslinger |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives