Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Project proposal -- maintainer-wanted

[Mart Raudsepp]

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:50 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> >
> > Liking and using the package yourself shouldn't be a prerequisite for a
> > package getting to be in-tree by the maintainer-wanted team.
>
> How about actually maintaining the package?

Yes, actually maintaining the package would be a standard for the
project.

> For example, user contributes ebuild for foo-1.0.  I don't use it or
> like it, but I go ahead and throw it into portage.  User logs bug that
> foo-1.0 wipes out random files from time to time.  Nobody looks at said
> bug since nobody owns foo, and bug starts getting 3000 "me-too!"
> comments.

The maintainer-wanted team owns that foo package then, which is why
having a different mail alias than the existing one for "new package
requests that aren't in gentoo tree yet" would be a good idea.

> Some charitable developer takes a look and the problem isn't
> obvious and offers to just mask the package.  Now 3000 people running
> foo are upset for it being de-supported (when it wasn't supported in the
> first place).
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense for people who like the foo-1.0 ebuild to
> just stick it in their own ebuild or an overlay and be on their own
> (since they're really on their own either way)?  Or to move it to
> sunrise or some other place where it might actually get some level of
> support?

I am proposing to have it in the official tree and not having such a
situation happen at all by random dev adding it to tree without the
intention to maintain it.

> If Gentoo is going to distribute an ebuild Gentoo should
> Do-It-Right(TM).  Why put our name on something we don't really want to
> care for?

The intention would be to Do-It-Right(TM).


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@g.o
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio