| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA512 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 22/06/2011 07:30 μμ, Dane Smith wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 9 |
>>>> Hash: SHA512 |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>>> - gpg control packet |
| 13 |
>>>>> All, |
| 14 |
>>>>> [..] |
| 15 |
>>>>> Thanks! |
| 16 |
>>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ |
| 18 |
>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>> Hi Dane, |
| 20 |
>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you |
| 22 |
>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed |
| 23 |
>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers |
| 27 |
>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a |
| 28 |
>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy |
| 29 |
>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal |
| 30 |
>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. |
| 31 |
>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a |
| 34 |
>> package so users can step up and maintain a package |
| 35 |
>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if |
| 36 |
>>> there were other concerns. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that |
| 39 |
>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the |
| 40 |
>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n |
| 41 |
>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages. |
| 45 |
> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the |
| 46 |
> primary goal of this "new" project. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to |
| 49 |
treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty |
| 50 |
much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so |
| 51 |
I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We |
| 52 |
might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended |
| 53 |
goals if needed |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
[1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml |
| 56 |
- -- |
| 57 |
Regards, |
| 58 |
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 |
| 59 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 60 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAhtVAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC9D0QAJCYrmc6GCfeU51MICpYf8UY |
| 63 |
SfRtX1zmegi1QyDAVfeYLWGAv4rLHfNPIk7WI8qoVeGaBopEU4W2MvXHmmXe5wC2 |
| 64 |
wyDBFBSb/qSlEh5eYPwBSuXvTbIDGNX7GhXNmZe3yAoDsx9XrPurygjGO1jF+y5L |
| 65 |
GECMt/A+l/7Iha5GyjH4Yh9p5NGJZK/ZNjV8C0YxpYl0QGc1YmOu9jbH/STiPB1/ |
| 66 |
/aa4aA/usFfmBiss+AWwBOSZnTXMQ2HRJVN/WHmwZBHIN1/4azkTlSKUY6go6xsq |
| 67 |
29Y+tt9GUNT2iR1QhtBQ032LIeljq4AYA2ce3p4kIaLUJpVc/mSHYP70zxrW2rVL |
| 68 |
35NmEYg/tzENeueDVzl7gzMwLquO7eG8lIRt8oe/RwZSoO2c/XWzBhA4ST07YtjK |
| 69 |
DFLndiB8Llwfm+de0UqhMcbritXLs6/QOQGgQ9MseZ/966Y3N9MI5Cqm5aluQsgM |
| 70 |
aOZhVN2QmxYWFKp5RCnpszz/s7spbEuhFgXSDfgkKcG+sMcU/LRG544bpLOelkSY |
| 71 |
b5bRj3odECrmLbhkCDJYYJ6n9mOyXc1zG8q+kfQqKqsgyumEeY228t01/5FJBimr |
| 72 |
bTtrJetuJB/pJPPD/qzCjrhu+ryiaOzSccLZwxdPZuXRy2gqYadIfCT9L8qq+DzQ |
| 73 |
adfCD7d/ffGAlXlTrDIo |
| 74 |
=hrZt |
| 75 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives