| 1 |
On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted |
| 3 |
> ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue |
| 4 |
> forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm |
| 5 |
> missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any |
| 6 |
> more. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Two points: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right, but the |
| 11 |
ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches, interact with |
| 12 |
upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it absolutely doesn't matter, |
| 13 |
if an ebuild is broken or not before taking into account to maintain it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
2. People are interested in applications, but may not have the skills or |
| 16 |
interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like PISSOFF for |
| 17 |
them. I think we just look a bit petty-minded. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things |
| 21 |
> WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and |
| 22 |
> dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed |
| 23 |
> the bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and |
| 24 |
> decides to maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app then |
| 25 |
> fixing a broken ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the tree). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As I said: Ebuilds in Portage should be reviewed before you think about those |
| 28 |
in bugzilla. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Carsten |
Archives