Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:22:28
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program by Christoph Mende
Hash: SHA512

On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 >> >> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: >>> - gpg control packet >>> All, >>> [..] >>> Thanks! >>> >>> [1] >>> >> Hi Dane, >> >> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you >> understand why that effort did not succeed >> >> > > I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers > only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a > problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy > maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal > to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. > So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. >
This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a package so users can step up and maintain a package
> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if > there were other concerns.
The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAhXlAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCOqYP/imZLQGdtZwq4NhebiC/lIC5 yjBcXrqTufYh4mthyfwbsb0p/r2DyVuD+8NKZAhs60Ml6fv9PEXKB9O7SlBT/Yvj tlaiFjU+kCUfAcONX/prk5BjmFQZl3G+TFA/E4E6aYn0XpNvvC7ZNgxDeGfrojy5 9D8+l9rX2ZC+dxAYX5hABuUsmFU4I/ysTnAyAA0sBFI0FqmGmRNbAcisE2eqbMXt rDRR0gZthvm1gjw52jAcHIZYEl0NY5MmNvZsuy95mghcLui8WFJFeIDsUFHsYDBA 8RIq6awsnxtNOxjCjiFQSk/9WIB2XxH7IYvgn+8Vm3W4jQIeuvrzkcTNgU5K2sBR Bw7P0W5uMru+V0SEvcD4wiZn3AWviOH/b4rdqR/JRhRFnb3AnwSjOfeLkWmHH0il r7hyVxRSqYI0xycntyXogjUPoTPB8tb+xsPwiX8lNfI5Tejh8CYu+tdYC9uUQfro GjK6Y7XVrpEON5af4IwG4L26qOWgQSAJhF1vcZYXwxEzy96qh41qKtcDsArec+1a Z1v7N+C0j+LNu9HzmtnYvxPRS/msl2rm9XvJkzY2cgexttTL/xf0fOw41iHmyhA/ jJQ2NXbR9lVO42dHRy9eiaDdXA7RO/Rq24pg9Sc4X0ZI5ZUmVNwHb4re+rp9AJdw SBIzbWuRBJnqDc3peGzm =KZsW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program Christoph Mende <angelos@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program Dane Smith <c1pher@g.o>