| 1 |
On Sat, 2004-10-09 at 01:17 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 01:44:22 +0200 foser <foser@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 17:16 -0400, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 4 |
> | > First thank you for your in depth explanation. |
| 5 |
> | > Unfortunately I don't think we are any closer to being able to solve |
| 6 |
> | > the problem of when an ebuild does not fit into any existing herds |
| 7 |
> | > or when a maintainer is not apart of what would perhaps be a fitting |
| 8 |
> | > herd. |
| 9 |
> | |
| 10 |
> | Then an appropriate herd should be found or created. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This gets very very silly for certain small packages... We'd end up |
| 13 |
> having to create an individual herd for most developers... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, herds themselves should not be created for less than x packages |
| 16 |
(where x is something bigger than 5 I guess), creating individual herds |
| 17 |
for individual packages is really reverting things back to the old |
| 18 |
situation & the problems we tried to solve by introducing herds in the |
| 19 |
first place. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Every package is in some form a subset of a category of packages, it's |
| 22 |
hard to imagine a package really not fitting anywhere, being it |
| 23 |
functionality/language/target user/etc. wise. It's not about a |
| 24 |
theoretical possibility, but what is best to do here & now. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- foser |
Archives