| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:16AM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> Bryan Østergaard napsal(a): |
| 3 |
> > I think the most important thing about adding "empty" metadata.xml files |
| 4 |
> > with maintainer-needed as maintainer is that it _changes_ the package to |
| 5 |
> > be unmaintained by definition (that's what maintainer-needed means after |
| 6 |
> > all) and that we can't be sure that's actually true unless we spend a |
| 7 |
> > lot of time examining each package and asking potential maintainers |
| 8 |
> > if it's unmaintained. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on |
| 11 |
> adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone, |
| 12 |
> I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P). This will either force |
| 13 |
> them to reclaim their packages via fixing the metadata.xml thing or will |
| 14 |
> leave the ebuilds orphaned to m-needed - and then they shouldn't have |
| 15 |
> been added in the first place. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Above, I'm not talking about legacy stuff maintained in an ad-hoc manner |
| 18 |
> for ages, but about fairly recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even |
| 19 |
> less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people |
| 20 |
> from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to |
| 21 |
> metadata.xml - will make assigning bugs much easier for me. ;) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
I not quite as concerned whether your job is "easy" or not as I am that |
| 24 |
we don't lie about maintainers in metadata.xml. Wrong metadata.xml files |
| 25 |
affects a lot more people (devs as well as users) than just |
| 26 |
bug-wranglers. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Bryan Østergaard |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives