| 1 |
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:46:30 -0400 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I request that this tag be made optional in the metadata.xml DTD. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> While ideally it is beneficial to have every package in a herd, in |
| 7 |
> practice this doesn't occur. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 22:28 <@omp> $ herdstat -pq no-herd | wc -l |
| 10 |
> 22:28 <@omp> 1819 |
| 11 |
> 22:28 <@omp> looks like a lot of fixing is needed :) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> nearly 1/5 of our tree is herdless. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Is a "real herd" a real requirement of a package? I would say |
| 16 |
> realistically no. Thus the herd tag should be optional but highly |
| 17 |
> encouraged. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Well, I'd go further and question the whole herd concept. What benefits |
| 20 |
do we actually gain by having "herds"? For the most part it's just a |
| 21 |
way to associate a package with a mail alias, but for that I don't |
| 22 |
really see the need for this layer of indirection. It actually creates |
| 23 |
problems by itself as the herd data ("members" in herds.xml) gets out |
| 24 |
of sync with the mail data (alias members), then there is the (mostly |
| 25 |
historical) issue of having two copies of the same file getting out of |
| 26 |
sync, the permanent confusion of herds, herd maintainers and projects, |
| 27 |
and the problem just shown by Alec. |
| 28 |
So are there any other benefits in having herds as opposed to just |
| 29 |
adding a <maintainer><email>mail-alias@g.o</email></maintainer> |
| 30 |
element to metadata.xml and getting rid of the complete herds concept? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Marius |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 38 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives