| 1 |
On Thu, 14 May 2009 03:32:12 +0300 |
| 2 |
Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Project maintainer-wanted |
| 5 |
> ========================= |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Abstract: |
| 8 |
> There are currently quite some package requests (over 3000) languishing |
| 9 |
> on bugzilla waiting for a developer or team to get interested and |
| 10 |
> package it in the official gentoo-x86 portage tree. However in quite |
| 11 |
> some cases that might not happen for quite a while even with very |
| 12 |
> popular packages desired by users. The purpose of the maintainer-wanted |
| 13 |
> project is to get as many of such packages to the official tree as |
| 14 |
> possible as a stopgap solution. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Actually, I'm working on a "get the crap out of the tree" project that is |
| 17 |
pretty much the exact opposite of this. ;) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
But, things I like: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
- metrics for package popularity (can we do gentoo-stats already?) |
| 22 |
- encouraging teams and maintainers to take an interest in unmaintained |
| 23 |
packages |
| 24 |
- keeping track of maintainer-wanted/needed packages through categorization, |
| 25 |
etc. |
| 26 |
- proxy-maintainers |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
These things I think would benefit both projects, as well as several others. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I would actually rather see our overall package count dropping than growing, |
| 31 |
but if we're adding quality, maintained stuff and tossing out the garbage then |
| 32 |
I guess that's an improvement too. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 37 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 38 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives