| 1 |
Bryan Østergaard napsal(a): |
| 2 |
> I think the most important thing about adding "empty" metadata.xml files |
| 3 |
> with maintainer-needed as maintainer is that it _changes_ the package to |
| 4 |
> be unmaintained by definition (that's what maintainer-needed means after |
| 5 |
> all) and that we can't be sure that's actually true unless we spend a |
| 6 |
> lot of time examining each package and asking potential maintainers |
| 7 |
> if it's unmaintained. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on |
| 10 |
adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone, |
| 11 |
I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P). This will either force |
| 12 |
them to reclaim their packages via fixing the metadata.xml thing or will |
| 13 |
leave the ebuilds orphaned to m-needed - and then they shouldn't have |
| 14 |
been added in the first place. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Above, I'm not talking about legacy stuff maintained in an ad-hoc manner |
| 17 |
for ages, but about fairly recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even |
| 18 |
less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people |
| 19 |
from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to |
| 20 |
metadata.xml - will make assigning bugs much easier for me. ;) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Jakub Moc |
| 27 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 28 |
GPG signature: |
| 29 |
http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 30 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives