| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:18 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Kevin, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I read the "should" as |
| 6 |
> > implying that all new packages must have it, and packages existing |
| 7 |
> > before the introduction of metadata should get it as and when |
| 8 |
> > maintainer gets around to it (i.e. at least on the next bump). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Chris's argument was that this doc _requires_ packages to belong to |
| 11 |
> herds (specifically, that all packages that are games automatically |
| 12 |
> belong to the games herd). The document clearly doesn't support his |
| 13 |
> argument. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I said no such thing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is clearly a case of you trying to assume what I'm saying in such a |
| 18 |
way that it matches with what you want me to say. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I said that all games in the tree should be in the games herd. We like |
| 21 |
it this way. Trying to make it out like I said something that I didn't |
| 22 |
does what for you, exactly? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> > So you'd better have a good excuse for violating the rule if you do |
| 25 |
> > so. Anyone adding a herd tag to meet the "shall", then putting garbage |
| 26 |
> > in it that isn't the name of a defined herd for no good reason, |
| 27 |
> > deserves to be spanked. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> ?? Where has that come from? Has there been a spate of people doing this? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ever seen a "no-herd" package? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> That's your personal opinion, which I respect, and I understand how |
| 34 |
> you've come to that conclusion. But it doesn't change the fact that, |
| 35 |
> if folks choose to maintain a game without joining the games herd, |
| 36 |
> they're prefectly entitled to do so. And the same is true for |
| 37 |
> webapps, or anything else. You simply can't go around clubbing people |
| 38 |
> over the head and saying "that's a <project> project ebuild, join our |
| 39 |
> team or it doesn't go into the tree", which is where this is leading. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Not at all... this is where the naysayers will lead you to *believe* |
| 42 |
that it is leading. How about this? How about you ask tcort about what |
| 43 |
happened the other day with the games package that he wanted to add? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
He asked me if he could add it and he would maintain it. I said yes. |
| 46 |
He added it with games as the herd, and him as maintainer. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Where's the problem? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> What we _don't_ want are folks adding a package to a tree and dumping |
| 51 |
> it on a herd without their permission. That always has been a big 'no |
| 52 |
> no' in Gentoo. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
See, this is where you're mistaken in thinking that anyone says that you |
| 55 |
can dump a package on someone else. I *definitely* have said no such |
| 56 |
thing. If someone adds a game, they better damn well list themselves as |
| 57 |
the maintainer. The same should be true for all packages. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 61 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 62 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 63 |
Games - Developer |
| 64 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives