So, we are back online :). On Tuesday 23 December 2003 17:47, foser wrote: > > Besides, on that "noherd" thing - I despise it. For one it is plain > > illegal. Plus, considering what I just mentioned about the > > temporareliness of metadata of such packages, it is likely to remain > > "noherd" for foreseable future. > > Yeah, the example was about the comment really, you are reading things > into it. I don't like no-herd much either and wouldn't use it myself, > I'd try to find a suitable herd or create one (it's also about indexing > what herds are needed). Ok, this was already addressed elsewhere, so I'll just put some perspective on that original mail.
> > Adding a temporary metadata does not work, because in reality it is not > > going to be temporary. In my experiense things tend to stick, even if > > there is a reasonably high traffic in them. With low maintaince packages > > their metadata are going to be like set in stone. > > Well, you do have to actively look for a maintainer. Anyway, you can > usually go with the category herd, only you do have to inform them and > make it 'official' theirs. Don't worry, - I am already overseing a few herds including one major (app-sci). As for the packages I was talking about: there was a time when we had a total of ~ 300 packages in portage and we were accepting pretty much all submissions. I was getting my share of bugs, quite often not really that related. I even felt at times like being a plug for bunch of holes by doing a fix here and update there :). By this I am trying to show that there wasn't a real sense of maintainership for quite a few of these as there were many for which I was doing a fix due to their original maintainers/submitters being no longer active. Some of these packages are coming back at me now :). If I were to count all the packages that I ever touched this would go well over 100. I guess I could "actively seek maintainership" for all these low-maintaince, non-related to my area of "concentration" at present, but that would effectively mean abandoning for quite a long period the ones for which I feel responsible.. Thus that email was more along the lines of "if you see the package which I touched recently but did not "mark" as mine (by adding metadata) please feel free to help yourself if you are interested". Actually this *is* me actively looking for maintainership for them, and looks like this works :) (there was one responce from non-dev interested in helping us). I hope this explanation addresses your worry ;). George -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
