| 1 |
Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The biggest problem for the maintainers is the varying quality of ebuilds. |
| 6 |
> Few, if any submissions are correct on the first go, and many of the |
| 7 |
> bugs/problems identified could be checked programmatically. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Submissions should then be run through a "screening" script that checks |
| 10 |
> for syntactic and semantic completeness, verifies dependencies, |
| 11 |
> well-formedness of ebuild, digest, changelog, etc. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If any of these tests fail, the submitter is notified, and no developers' |
| 14 |
> time is wasted needlessly until the ebuild script follows all the basic |
| 15 |
> guidelines and its sources actually compile. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
insightful. |
| 19 |
Do you have a prototype of this new system or the "screening" script ? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Should the package submitter decide in which cathegory its' |
| 22 |
package should go, and how should the RCS string (in ChangeLog + |
| 23 |
*.ebuild's third line) be formatted ? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Marko |
Archives