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: l...@gentoo.org Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
