-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 22/06/2011 07:42 μμ, Dane Smith wrote: > On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote: >> On 22/06/2011 07:30 ¼¼, Dane Smith wrote: >>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote: >>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>> Hash: SHA512 >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote: >>>>>>> - gpg control packet >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Dane, >>>>>> >>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you >>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204 > >>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers >>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a >>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy >>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal >>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers. >>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me. > >>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a >>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package >>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if >>>>> there were other concerns. > >>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that >>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the >>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n >>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it. > > >>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages. >>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the >>> primary goal of this "new" project. > >> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to >> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty >> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so >> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We >> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended >> goals if needed > >> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml > > That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that > have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it > might attract some much needed help to that project. > > Short version: I'm all for that. > In this case, I would advice you to start a discussion with [email protected] so we can formalize the new project and come back to this mailing list to discuss it with the rest of the devhood
- -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAiIpAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCdbgQAIt+Uedsfgfkm7DYbcced+8v 21efLyccy/7Wr8ZDrUjmPZXGJ2IRvOmAxcJLmjYJPppSopoaGqKXUKMQ3SVnkwnf thwD6H4A8EZCeU9lNa0TeBo1Rf0+M0Zzq9NFSUMD5RSQaY4E2y6Zfo+DNxyfuuO8 sgFriaMd+HFWCDost8mgWyu5hATZOQ/QdhtxstCamI9QNcw46BG4UMFM9CKLucUi tNQTBqBuOLjQvxdmDCijJcD4qisRt0pFLFoYDrbJRljXs1KIbOzJEibmwQ/GEVrO nsJ/KxyI4l7fQrJPKPWoGmcpM4Ybnnrw8XCSOen9Cc7b2nk936FnbPhkw1ofPmkU uAOhA9b4Qgy70hSACn463jiz/vo7uTpKRlU6B8Bk49Bwi4dTuEi6xqkXukU4TUK2 7CO0gZ7Jp0o4wBab6ZJfHjK8PCUSpE9p2HPMFM0v6wZE8FRHTBwTDE5Uv6EfgOrW C+p5Ka5BfE/7jVlY8AX+Shmgnc6P1XMX+IjXNdjgWQPx7Er6+JWABLhbAH+pzPxd 1OCR5n3cLJC4B0lGdx+n17SYkxiEU4Cu5Gxz7ppZ6srLJQKovmxIWfqzWTxCjjSc Q9sqbpTEr+z+rQ9PIidmdf9mDOsFX0SIQl85wS0sj6uv7xL4830a0Y/JxGXqsSOf /VLeVZIJc9+aNTXrqTKl =tbEE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
