| 1 |
Several core ROX programs are out of date. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Rox bug # 102228 |
| 4 |
Rox-lib bug # 79333 |
| 5 |
Rox-clib bug # 78309 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Despite the above bug reports, and copies to the current listed |
| 8 |
maintainers, the products are not being updated. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Rox is among the easiest programs to maintain, and many ebuilds simply |
| 11 |
need to be renamed in order to work. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In addition, I and others have contributed ebuilds for consideration, |
| 14 |
and they continue to languish or are assigned to the maintainer-wanted |
| 15 |
alias. I have offered to produce ebuilds for review and submission. I |
| 16 |
was told I needed to become a developer. While I would be happy to take |
| 17 |
on the responsibility, I don't see why it would be necessary. The |
| 18 |
ebuilds are already there for you. Just search ROX in bugzilla. I don't |
| 19 |
need my name on it. However, I do feel strongly that if you are going to |
| 20 |
offer a package suite in portage, you have an obligation to keep it |
| 21 |
current -- ESPECIALLY when the user community is doing the work already. |
| 22 |
No one is asking for any special work to be done -- just that bugs are |
| 23 |
responded to and handled. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I do not know what happened to the listed rox maintainers, svyatogor and |
| 26 |
lanius or why they are not updating rox. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I was wondering what it will take to have the portage tree updated. With |
| 29 |
the two libraries noted above, they are blockers to some of the rox |
| 30 |
applications and really need to be resolved. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
At least have the rox bugs reviewed and cleared out. Most of the ebuilds |
| 33 |
have already been submitted and are being used. They deserve to be |
| 34 |
placed in portage. |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Peter |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives