| 1 |
We ( as treecleaners ) can't move the packages to sunrise. If there are |
| 2 |
users out there who want to maintain them either move the ebuilds on sunrise |
| 3 |
themselves or proxy maintain them. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Michał Górny <gentoo@××××××××××.pl> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:07:12 +0300 |
| 8 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > If you start moving maintainer-needed package on Sunrise then Sunrise |
| 11 |
> > will end up as a garbage collector overlay having many many ebuilds |
| 12 |
> > that nobody will actually maintain. If you care about |
| 13 |
> > maintainer-needed package then step up and proxy maintain it. The |
| 14 |
> > delay ( which is not that big if you cooperate with an active |
| 15 |
> > developer/herd ) might be a drawback but still... I don't want |
| 16 |
> > sunrise to become a place where abandoned ebuilds will end up. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But who's talking here about moving abandoned ebuilds just to keep |
| 19 |
> them? I'd wanted just to make it simpler to switch the 'maintainership' |
| 20 |
> from Gentoo devs to Sunrise users, when the second are ready to |
| 21 |
> maintain the ebuild well. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> You may take a look at Sunrise net-im/ekg2 ebuild as an example. It has |
| 24 |
> probably almost nothing in common with the original ebuild. It even uses |
| 25 |
> an alternate build system, allows to fine-tune the build like not many |
| 26 |
> packages do. Do you consider that an 'abandoned ebuild'? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> Best regards, |
| 30 |
> Michał Górny |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> <http://mgorny.alt.pl> |
| 33 |
> <xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru <xmpp%3Amgorny@××××××.ru>> |
| 34 |
> |
Archives