| 1 |
субота, 28. жовтень 2006 08:01, Doug Goldstein Ви написали: |
| 2 |
> Wanna add "no-herd" to that list then? Cause right now there's no way to |
| 3 |
> identify no herd. |
| 4 |
And there should not be. This entry is *invalid* and *disallowed*. Every |
| 5 |
ebuild must belong to a valid herd. Period. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I am afraid, that policy may only be inferred by reading the metadata page of |
| 8 |
dev handbook: |
| 9 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=4 |
| 10 |
Sadly, this is one of the few things that did not get fomalized properly since |
| 11 |
the "oral tradition" times. Should we formalize it now? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If we do it any other way, we cannot rely on the metadata for the purposes of |
| 14 |
tracking unmaintained ebuilds. Yes, some ebuilds are not herded right now. |
| 15 |
Wanna guess how many of those happen to be stale? Then, <20% unherded |
| 16 |
packages? - I consider this a very good result! Remember, there is |
| 17 |
no "absolute correctness", so I would say right now the idea works for all |
| 18 |
practical purposes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
George |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives