| 1 |
On 20 Jan 2016 12:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 18 Jan 2016 00:57, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 01/17/2016 14:57, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > sys-apps/kexec-tools : |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> Better suited for base-system, maybe? |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> > sys-fs/jfsutils : |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> Definitely base-system, as xfsprogs is already maintained by them. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > sounds fine for both. generally fs tools probably should live under |
| 14 |
> > base-system for consistency. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Nothing wrong with consistency, but I'd prefer a package to be placed |
| 17 |
> under the base-system project because the base-system project members |
| 18 |
> intend to maintain it. I don't want to see packages placed into |
| 19 |
> projects simply because they're similar to other packages in those |
| 20 |
> projects if it means they'll just be neglected. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I have no idea which is the case here. If the base-system maintainers |
| 23 |
> want to maintain these two packages, have at it! If not, leave it as |
| 24 |
> maintainer-needed. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
if base-system@ isn't going to maintain it, we'll punt it from the herd |
| 27 |
-mike |
Archives