| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I agree here. If there is a maintainer for an ebuild, anyone who wants another version of the ebuild in the system should be able to send it to the maintainer for the ebuild or file a bug that should be assigned to the maintainer. Otherwise things would get really confusing. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
William |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 06:14:31PM +0200, Tony Clark wrote: |
| 8 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 9 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> On Tuesday 22 April 2003 18.00, Klavs Klavsen wrote: |
| 12 |
> > On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 16:57, Peter Ruskin wrote: |
| 13 |
> > > On Tuesday 22 Apr 2003 15:26, Dan Armak wrote: |
| 14 |
> > > > The second will facilitate quick acceptance of user-submitted ebuilds |
| 15 |
> > > > in some way - probably drawing upon the submitters in one way or |
| 16 |
> > > > another. |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > I'm more than willing to maintain ebuilds I submit. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > Same here. What are the requirements for being a maintainer? |
| 21 |
> > I don't think one has to make the newest version available ASAP. |
| 22 |
> > This f.ex. didn't happen with drip - which was why I created a new |
| 23 |
> > version myself. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > I think people who submit ebuilds should automacally be added as |
| 26 |
> > maintainer of the ebuild. If they contribute with a newer version of a |
| 27 |
> > given ebuild - then they should be added as maintainer - keeping the old |
| 28 |
> > maintainer too. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Not too sure I agree with this. You need people to take some sort of |
| 31 |
> ownership of the problem. If things don't get done then you can look at |
| 32 |
> replacing them. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives