| 1 |
On Saturday 28 October 2006 02:46, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 3 |
> > One of the reasons herds were introduced was to explicitly see what |
| 4 |
> > packages lack maintenance. It is possible for the ebuild to be in the |
| 5 |
> > herd, but be supported by the developer not on the herd. See the <role> |
| 6 |
> > tag. Also, there can be one-dev herds. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I have a number of specialized packages that I maintain, such as |
| 9 |
> sys-block/qla-fc-firmware, that cannot be classified as any existing |
| 10 |
> herd, and are specialized enough inventing a new herd for them would not |
| 11 |
> really help. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
declaring no herd for maintainership here makes sense ... requiring a <herd> |
| 14 |
tag and forcing it to "no-herd" keeps things explicit ... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
on the topic of finding unmaintained packages: |
| 17 |
if there is no herd and no maintainer, should we just cut metadata.xml ? or |
| 18 |
do we recommend people to stick in <herd>no-herd</herd> ? the former would |
| 19 |
help with people sticking in bogus things like a maintainer of bug-wranglers |
| 20 |
(really maintainer-needed would make more sense) ... |
| 21 |
-mike |
Archives