Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 07:30 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote:
>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote:
>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dane,
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>>>> there were other concerns.
>
>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
>
>
>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
>> primary goal of this "new" project.
>
> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to
> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty
> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so
> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We
> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended
> goals if needed
>
> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml

That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that
have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it
might attract some much needed help to that project.

Short version: I'm all for that.

- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=dBBx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----