Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:32:14
Message-Id: 46059ce1050912122677c3f85e@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date by Carsten Lohrke
1 The problem is, trying to fix ebuilds in tree is a lot more
2 complicated.. You have to fight with multiple herds, and multiple
3 developers, and explain to them why it should occur, in order to get
4 anything to happen.. In addition, even a global gigantic one liner to
5 add quotes to $D and $S would cause huge rsync loads... which makes
6 the mirror admins hate you... Combine this with the first issue, and
7 just improving the incoming ebuilds and hoping that the devs watching
8 this list pay attention, and make some of these changes in newly added
9 ebuilds, will improve the quality of the tree slowly.
10
11 If a user submits an ebuild, they should be prepared to make fixes to
12 bring it up to a standard. Many of the ebuilds do not even follow
13 ebuild-submit.xml, and the maintainer fixing them only causes more
14 problems for other maintainers further down, assuming the user submits
15 multiple ebuilds. Once they learn the rules, later ebuilds will
16 hopefully be up to the same standards.
17
18 On 9/12/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote:
19 > On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote:
20 > > Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted
21 > > ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted
22 > queue
23 > > forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise,
24 > I'm
25 > > missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any
26 > > more.
27 >
28 > Two points:
29 >
30 > 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right, but the
31 > ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches, interact with
32 > upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it absolutely doesn't matter,
33 >
34 > if an ebuild is broken or not before taking into account to maintain it.
35 >
36 > 2. People are interested in applications, but may not have the skills or
37 > interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like PISSOFF for
38 > them. I think we just look a bit petty-minded.
39 >
40 >
41 > > At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things
42 > > WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and
43 > > dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed
44 > > the bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and
45 > > decides to maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app
46 > then
47 > > fixing a broken ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the
48 > tree).
49 >
50 > As I said: Ebuilds in Portage should be reviewed before you think about
51 > those
52 > in bugzilla.
53 >
54 >
55 > Carsten
56 >
57 >
58
59 --
60 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list