1 |
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:13:34AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
2 |
> > A great example of this are web-based applications. The web-apps project |
3 |
> > does not own all the web-based packages in the Portage tree. There are many |
4 |
> > such packages in the tree that are managed by developers that are not part |
5 |
> > of the project. The web-apps project gets to decide what happens to the |
6 |
> > packages grouped in the web-apps herd, but we neither have the right (nor |
7 |
> > the desire) to tell other developers that they can't add web-based packages |
8 |
> > to the tree; nor do other developers require our permission before adding |
9 |
> > packages to the tree. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Again, you are confusing herds and projects. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Here's another example of it done correctly. If you add a game to the |
14 |
> tree, the herd should be listed as games. Period. Even if you are |
15 |
> going to be the sole maintainer of the package, games should be the |
16 |
> herd. Why? Because it is a game, silly. |
17 |
|
18 |
Why do no games' metadata.xml specify games@ as the maintainer? I |
19 |
thought it was because <herd>games</herd> implies this already, but if |
20 |
it doesn't, then dozens of games can be considered unmaintained right |
21 |
now, and fair game for anyone to mess with without approval. Are you |
22 |
sure you like this interpretation of 'herd'? |
23 |
|
24 |
You're probably right that herd is supposed to mean what you say it |
25 |
does, but existing practise, even by yourself, is very different from |
26 |
it. |
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |