| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 11:09:53AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 08:28 +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Wanna guess how many of those happen to be stale? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I would suspect fewer than you think. As an example, I have a few |
| 6 |
> packages which belong to no herd, but have me listed as maintainer. |
| 7 |
> Many of the no-herd packages are the same. Not being grouped with other |
| 8 |
> packages doesn't mean it is unmaintained. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I agree. All my rox stuff (rox-base/* and rox-extra/*) kind of |
| 11 |
fits into many different herds. Or no herd. Or maybe its own |
| 12 |
new herd. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> So this bears the question, what is the proper solution? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Make <herd> optional? |
| 17 |
> Force the maintainer's email into <herd> for packages without a herd? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Or force each maintainer of herdless packages to create their own |
| 20 |
special herd. Which I may end up doing with my rox packages |
| 21 |
anyway. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Jim Ramsay |
| 25 |
Gentoo/Linux Developer (rox) |
Archives