1 |
Mark Loeser wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> said: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> Current state: "Deferred" |
6 |
>> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Yea, this sounds like a good thing from reading over the GLEP, unless |
9 |
> I'm missing some glaring problems with it. |
10 |
> |
11 |
>> Open questions from last discussion (March 2006): |
12 |
>> - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one <maintainer> |
13 |
>> entry? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Yea, agree. |
16 |
> |
17 |
>> - Is recording an upstream-status (active/inactive) a good idea? |
18 |
>> Possibilities: |
19 |
>> An element: <status>{active/inactive}</status> |
20 |
>> An attribute: <maintainer status="{active/inactive}">... |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Definately. We have several packages in the tree that once they become |
23 |
> broken, we'd have to start developing ourselves. This will help the |
24 |
> treecleaner project as well so they can tell if a package has several |
25 |
> open bugs and upstream is inactive, its a very good candidate for |
26 |
> getting booted from the tree. |
27 |
> |
28 |
>> - Is an additional <doc> element needed to link to upstream docs |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Sounds reasonable. |
31 |
> |
32 |
>> - Must the type of <remote-id> be controlled/listed/checked? |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I'd say we should come up with a good list to start with. We can come |
35 |
> up with updates to the allowed values at a later date, but I do think we |
36 |
> should keep this under control. |
37 |
Ok, agreed. |
38 |
Where should we keep that list? |
39 |
Something like "gentoo-x86/metadata/dtd/upstream-tags.dtd" ? |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |