On Wednesday 24 December 2003 02:47, foser wrote: > > Hm, what do you mean ? 'no-herd' is a valid entry, it is no problem to > have no-herd packages as long as it has active maintainers. So there's > really nothing to go trough.
It is for now still "acceptable" however not the preferred solution at all. It is only there as a temporary solution so that people can claim their maintenance of a package when there is no herd that is suitable for the package. I will very soon look into the herds situation and check how many packages are still without herd, or even unmaintained. Then we will need to create herds for those packages and group them. Other packages might need to be removed from the tree. > > So, the only change I can envision doing is, instead of "unofficially" > > taking care of these packages as time allows, to outright drop them and > > throw the related bugs back to bug-wranglers. > > You shift the problem to developers outside yourself, i don't know what > packages you talk about exactly. If you were at one time maintaining a > package, you are probably still one of the best people on the team to > take care for it as long as it has no herd assigned. There are many packages such as supporting libraries that you need for an ebuild. Often you are then forced to go to maintain that library even if you have no desire to do so. Because of a lack of interest the people supporting such a library might not be the best people to do so. Most support for such libraries thus comes down to keep it working and updating when the dependend package needs a higher version of a lib. This is not the best maintenance the lib can have. (Although in some cases it is good enough). > I know there are a lot of devs who have in the past happily added new > packages to portage, but when it came to maintaining them they really > let it go a bit. I don't know if that is the case here and i do not say > you did this, but the whole herds idea is about responsibility and right > now the responsibility for you is to get these packages certain > maintainership. I completely agree that there are too many such packages. However making things work (or changing the chmod syntax) is in my eyes not really maintaining, and I can forgive spider for not wanting to go and assign those packages to herds (if appropriate herds exist) > The move to a full covered maintainership of packages in the tree trough > herds is a big job (which has already taken too long imo) and i think > every dev has a responsibility to do his part of the job to make it > happen. Pushing it all on the bug-wranglers as you suggest is no option > in my opinion. I will try to start to get a status on unmaintained ebuilds and take some action soon. > These are my views, i don't know how people involved in bug-wrangling or > the herd initiators think about this. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
