1 |
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 01:00:51AM +0200, Rainer Groesslinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Monday 14 April 2003 00:25, Brad Laue wrote: |
3 |
> > Given the increasing size of the portage tree I'm becoming concerned |
4 |
> > about the rate at which ebuilds move from the unstable ~arch keyword to |
5 |
> > the stable one. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> correct, same here. |
8 |
> Additionally there are many ebuilds in the tree that should be removed |
9 |
> again...for example most of the game mods (not because I don't like gamers |
10 |
> just because e.g. osp for quake3 isn't maintained although quite some time |
11 |
> passed already since the last osp release(s) and in a multiplayer game it's |
12 |
> useless to have an old version of something ;) |
13 |
|
14 |
Submit an updated ebuild. |
15 |
|
16 |
> |
17 |
> > Has a formalized process been discussed for this? The first thing that |
18 |
> > comes to mind is a set of tinderboxes designed to build packages with |
19 |
> > predictable flags sending reports to each ebuild maintainer. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Problem: Gentoo doesn't have maintainers ! |
22 |
> It has been discussed to introduce a MAINTAINER="xxxx@g.o" thing in the |
23 |
> ebuilds but it seems like the idea got dropped by the core developers (or |
24 |
> didn't even get attention, I don't know). |
25 |
> |
26 |
> The only real maintainer is carpaski for portage, most other packages are |
27 |
> worked on by more or less "Freelancers"... |
28 |
> Sure, many people are related to something, but you can't see who is the |
29 |
> maintainer of a certain package. |
30 |
> Just imagine...there are some packages where version 0.1 was submitted by dev |
31 |
> A, 0.2 by dev B and 0.2.1 by dev C and 0.3 again by dev B etc. |
32 |
> |
33 |
|
34 |
Read changelogs. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Not, that this is bad at all, but it would be much better to have "real" |
37 |
> maintainers like almost every other distribution has, too. |
38 |
|
39 |
We have real maintainers. For example, I maintain a handful of packages. |
40 |
|
41 |
Could you be more specific about what constitutes a "real" maintainer? |
42 |
|
43 |
> |
44 |
> > The second is more practical and within reach; advocacy of |
45 |
> > stable.gentoo.org, and a policy of accepting a package as stable when |
46 |
> > five or more users have vouched for it and two weeks have passed without |
47 |
> > a bug report. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> stable.gentoo.org is _great_ ! Thanks so much to blizzy (unfortunatly he's not |
50 |
> in the dev team any more). The problem here is that this site must be pushed |
51 |
> quite hard because there are packages in the tree only a few people use and |
52 |
> if those people don't use stable.gentoo.org they won't be stable anytime soon |
53 |
> or might - in a bad case - be pushed into stable because nobody complain |
54 |
> although it's just because nobody uses stable.gentoo.org |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Jon Portnoy |
59 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
60 |
|
61 |
-- |
62 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |