| 1 |
foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't think the problem with maintainer-wanted ebuilds is that they |
| 3 |
> are crappy, but that there is no dev willing to maintain them and ensure |
| 4 |
> their quality over time. 'sunrise' (who came up with that name ? cheap |
| 5 |
> asian poetry attempt) doesn't change that by adding it to an 'official' |
| 6 |
> overlay. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The sunrise name name from Patrick Lauer and I personally really like it :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Instead of tackling the real problem -the lack of maintainers to deal |
| 12 |
> with all requests- 'sunrise' is trying to create a backdoor for |
| 13 |
> unreliable maintained stuff to enter the tree. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Please, you are confusing "overlay" and "tree" here. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And yes - I do try to tackle the real problem with this project. I am hoping |
| 18 |
to teach quite a few people how to write ebuilds and contribute with the |
| 19 |
overlay. I am already beeing contacted by interested people and it will |
| 20 |
only help the situation come better. Eventually a few good recruits might |
| 21 |
be the result of this project |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also the sunriose overlay is an attempt to solve the unreliable maintained |
| 24 |
problem. You see that for example today we are committing a bunch of |
| 25 |
gcc-4.1 fixes for ebuilds that are obviously "unreliable maintained" in |
| 26 |
gentoo. The sunrise overlay helps to fix stuff quicker and extends the |
| 27 |
basis of people that can do maintaining work. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Please do not comment on this if you have no real improvements to make and |
| 30 |
just fell like commenting, "flaming" it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Kind regards, |
| 33 |
- Stefan |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives