List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 01:00:51AM +0200, Rainer Groesslinger wrote:
> On Monday 14 April 2003 00:25, Brad Laue wrote:
> > Given the increasing size of the portage tree I'm becoming concerned
> > about the rate at which ebuilds move from the unstable ~arch keyword to
> > the stable one.
> correct, same here.
> Additionally there are many ebuilds in the tree that should be removed
> again...for example most of the game mods (not because I don't like gamers
> just because e.g. osp for quake3 isn't maintained although quite some time
> passed already since the last osp release(s) and in a multiplayer game it's
> useless to have an old version of something ;)
Submit an updated ebuild.
> > Has a formalized process been discussed for this? The first thing that
> > comes to mind is a set of tinderboxes designed to build packages with
> > predictable flags sending reports to each ebuild maintainer.
> Problem: Gentoo doesn't have maintainers !
> It has been discussed to introduce a MAINTAINER="firstname.lastname@example.org" thing in the
> ebuilds but it seems like the idea got dropped by the core developers (or
> didn't even get attention, I don't know).
> The only real maintainer is carpaski for portage, most other packages are
> worked on by more or less "Freelancers"...
> Sure, many people are related to something, but you can't see who is the
> maintainer of a certain package.
> Just imagine...there are some packages where version 0.1 was submitted by dev
> A, 0.2 by dev B and 0.2.1 by dev C and 0.3 again by dev B etc.
> Not, that this is bad at all, but it would be much better to have "real"
> maintainers like almost every other distribution has, too.
We have real maintainers. For example, I maintain a handful of packages.
Could you be more specific about what constitutes a "real" maintainer?
> > The second is more practical and within reach; advocacy of
> > stable.gentoo.org, and a policy of accepting a package as stable when
> > five or more users have vouched for it and two weeks have passed without
> > a bug report.
> stable.gentoo.org is _great_ ! Thanks so much to blizzy (unfortunatly he's not
> in the dev team any more). The problem here is that this site must be pushed
> quite hard because there are packages in the tree only a few people use and
> if those people don't use stable.gentoo.org they won't be stable anytime soon
> or might - in a bad case - be pushed into stable because nobody complain
> although it's just because nobody uses stable.gentoo.org
email@example.com mailing list