| 1 |
Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Liking and using the package yourself shouldn't be a prerequisite for a |
| 4 |
> package getting to be in-tree by the maintainer-wanted team. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
How about actually maintaining the package? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
For example, user contributes ebuild for foo-1.0. I don't use it or |
| 9 |
like it, but I go ahead and throw it into portage. User logs bug that |
| 10 |
foo-1.0 wipes out random files from time to time. Nobody looks at said |
| 11 |
bug since nobody owns foo, and bug starts getting 3000 "me-too!" |
| 12 |
comments. Some charitable developer takes a look and the problem isn't |
| 13 |
obvious and offers to just mask the package. Now 3000 people running |
| 14 |
foo are upset for it being de-supported (when it wasn't supported in the |
| 15 |
first place). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Wouldn't it make more sense for people who like the foo-1.0 ebuild to |
| 18 |
just stick it in their own ebuild or an overlay and be on their own |
| 19 |
(since they're really on their own either way)? Or to move it to |
| 20 |
sunrise or some other place where it might actually get some level of |
| 21 |
support? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If Gentoo is going to distribute an ebuild Gentoo should |
| 24 |
Do-It-Right(TM). Why put our name on something we don't really want to |
| 25 |
care for? |
Archives