| 1 |
Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Current state: "Deferred" |
| 4 |
> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yea, this sounds like a good thing from reading over the GLEP, unless |
| 7 |
I'm missing some glaring problems with it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Open questions from last discussion (March 2006): |
| 10 |
> - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one <maintainer> |
| 11 |
> entry? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yea, agree. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> - Is recording an upstream-status (active/inactive) a good idea? |
| 16 |
> Possibilities: |
| 17 |
> An element: <status>{active/inactive}</status> |
| 18 |
> An attribute: <maintainer status="{active/inactive}">... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Definately. We have several packages in the tree that once they become |
| 21 |
broken, we'd have to start developing ourselves. This will help the |
| 22 |
treecleaner project as well so they can tell if a package has several |
| 23 |
open bugs and upstream is inactive, its a very good candidate for |
| 24 |
getting booted from the tree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> - Is an additional <doc> element needed to link to upstream docs |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Sounds reasonable. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> - Must the type of <remote-id> be controlled/listed/checked? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'd say we should come up with a good list to start with. We can come |
| 33 |
up with updates to the allowed values at a later date, but I do think we |
| 34 |
should keep this under control. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Mark Loeser |
| 39 |
email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org |
| 40 |
email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com |
| 41 |
web - http://www.halcy0n.com |
Archives