| 1 |
Hi guys, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:40:04 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>On 20 Jan 2016 12:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 7 |
>> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> > On 18 Jan 2016 00:57, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 9 |
>> >> On 01/17/2016 14:57, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 10 |
>> >> > sys-apps/kexec-tools : |
| 11 |
>> >> |
| 12 |
>> >> Better suited for base-system, maybe? |
| 13 |
>> >> |
| 14 |
>> >> > sys-fs/jfsutils : |
| 15 |
>> >> |
| 16 |
>> >> Definitely base-system, as xfsprogs is already maintained by |
| 17 |
>> >> them. |
| 18 |
>> > |
| 19 |
>> > sounds fine for both. generally fs tools probably should live |
| 20 |
>> > under base-system for consistency. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Nothing wrong with consistency, but I'd prefer a package to be placed |
| 23 |
>> under the base-system project because the base-system project members |
| 24 |
>> intend to maintain it. I don't want to see packages placed into |
| 25 |
>> projects simply because they're similar to other packages in those |
| 26 |
>> projects if it means they'll just be neglected. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> I have no idea which is the case here. If the base-system |
| 29 |
>> maintainers want to maintain these two packages, have at it! If |
| 30 |
>> not, leave it as maintainer-needed. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>if base-system@ isn't going to maintain it, we'll punt it from the herd |
| 33 |
>-mike |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
well, I already added myself as maintainer of sys-fs/jfsutils and I |
| 36 |
happen to be a base-system maintainer. So goal already reached :) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Kind regards |
| 39 |
Lars |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Lars Wendler |
| 43 |
Gentoo package maintainer |
| 44 |
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93 9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39 |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Attention! New gpg key! See (self signed server cert for now) |
| 47 |
http://www.gentoofan.org/blog/index.php?/archives/9-New-gpg-keys.html |
Archives