1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote: |
5 |
> On 22/06/2011 07:30 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote: |
6 |
>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote: |
7 |
>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote: |
8 |
>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
9 |
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
10 |
>>>>> Hash: SHA512 |
11 |
>>>>> |
12 |
>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: |
13 |
>>>>>> - gpg control packet |
14 |
>>>>>> All, |
15 |
>>>>>> [..] |
16 |
>>>>>> Thanks! |
17 |
>>>>>> |
18 |
>>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ |
19 |
>>>>>> |
20 |
>>>>> Hi Dane, |
21 |
>>>>> |
22 |
>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you |
23 |
>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed |
24 |
>>>>> |
25 |
>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 |
26 |
> |
27 |
>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers |
28 |
>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a |
29 |
>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy |
30 |
>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal |
31 |
>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. |
32 |
>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. |
33 |
> |
34 |
>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a |
35 |
>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package |
36 |
>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if |
37 |
>>>> there were other concerns. |
38 |
> |
39 |
>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that |
40 |
>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the |
41 |
>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n |
42 |
>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> |
45 |
>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages. |
46 |
>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the |
47 |
>> primary goal of this "new" project. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to |
50 |
> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty |
51 |
> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so |
52 |
> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We |
53 |
> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended |
54 |
> goals if needed |
55 |
> |
56 |
> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml |
57 |
|
58 |
That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that |
59 |
have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it |
60 |
might attract some much needed help to that project. |
61 |
|
62 |
Short version: I'm all for that. |
63 |
|
64 |
- -- |
65 |
Dane Smith (c1pher) |
66 |
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86 |
67 |
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index |
68 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
69 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) |
70 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ |
71 |
|
72 |
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOAhtaAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxfXUP/Alb7xRoK8PfcAo4g9SWGc6G |
73 |
6JiYgwenUN9OkrtftuSf/SJOTMWmcCop4c0NFM+ci2lxyxGVnrjuvaAgozprJDBQ |
74 |
yrEw/BOfQS8p70S8VF8kFiDwEUDf96BVOaKc/JL1k4sRI2hza/RgLhLgmNR02lX5 |
75 |
EDaeizLsahOJY1QjL/g3QuvnqbX/Ar0o9uh5kWD3nkryRny7iJTv6DiHLV8c0VKE |
76 |
OZf21Mm4PGEZU1yJ2/+h2Zzyi0AEZLJmkh02my0266IMhxL2ARBDDgUOA1zh13pw |
77 |
72Vn+8o8UxwgA25ZtwoP7LkbCVzIjGescqKaU01TUJUgeyy2Y1A0WOeNC4lGvBgO |
78 |
Q+ZyIQeoJTWf4N95cn5wwWRonW2VZ01zlnyP/iqoTDJVgHTLSZIcGYvWGfvLZvmk |
79 |
dO01qi5nfUwkCVB0MyaH8o3EY9vxN2sBjsIgw7kOaEBn9Ea2Ka0u9Cwfsblkhcx6 |
80 |
kHk6+uurhwE0zYRn1aKXbQURI9c1aJu6Y7xPX2PxGGooo4zli/YhaFKe5RkPWGMK |
81 |
IMs31ZVYOcm2Q1m6zhkTMw6l/sTUCWoACRGUyORrVFw/iLm33sY9QLe0jFPc/OEW |
82 |
s+lVlWcl8vt6MOJtX2dcD98Jwqf2LYjeqzvhg/fKv1vjIkd3ynaecSJNdWqozydt |
83 |
UWOtDHDOoTqFRZ+KzEFy |
84 |
=dBBx |
85 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |