From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27612 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Apr 2003 12:56:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 6969 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2003 12:56:12 -0000 From: Frantz Dhin Reply-To: fd@redspot.dk To: Klavs Klavsen Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1050997108.2986.28.camel@amd.vsen.dk> References: <1050997108.2986.28.camel@amd.vsen.dk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Redspot ApS Message-Id: <1051016369.4102.46.camel@entropy> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4- Date: 22 Apr 2003 14:59:30 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2003 12:57:42.0334 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2F09DE0:01C308CE] Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuilds not getting in :( X-Archives-Salt: 1b8b6df1-7e4b-46c7-9cf0-5e544cba8321 X-Archives-Hash: 3c2bdc79cf2c7318eb0ca582b2587cd2 I feel your pain. Usually it takes several weeks before the ebuild updates I submit get accepted, and if at all, they usually they get accepted unaltered, which makes those weeks a waste of time. I wish stuff could get into the unstable branch of Gentoo much easier. I would like to see some people with freedom to roam the tree accept things into unstable, and not have everything depend on if a branch maintainer has time or interest currently or not. Gentoo is supposed to be bleeding edge, but fact is that 30-35% of the packages in portage tree are at least one version behind. A too large share of developer resources external to the official gentoo developer team remains largely unused. A distribution that prides itself by being flexible and bleeding edge should also have smooth and flexible policies. For insight into where bureaucratic policies brings a distribution refer to Debian. A few people are undoubtedly going to take offence at this, but my main point is that gentoo needs to accept contributions from outside easier. There is nothing that is more likely to scare a contributor away than this frustration and feeling that you actually have to fight for acceptance of even trivial contributions. I feel that this is one of the reasons that we have an unstable branch, or maybe we could make a new keyword? x86 for stable, ~x86 for unstable, and ^x86 for lunatic? :) The tree maintainers finest and most important task, as I see it, is making an educated decision about when to change keywording of ebuilds. This is the major responsibility since servers are likely to be running Stable and must not get hosed, and users running Unstable on their desktop pretty much know that things will break from time to time. Regards Frantz Dhin On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 09:38, Klavs Klavsen wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have written these ebuilds: > > vserver-0.22 > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19230 > > Created because a costumer of mine wanted me to install Gentoo with > vserver. I've also talked to a guy named Georges Tooth about making an > ebuild that installs a base vserver (aka. skel vserver) that mangles the > init-system as needed (it needs to be pretty mangled - to work perfectly > and not do anything that requires capabilities as these are removed > under vserver :) > > USAGI-ipv6 tools (the ipv6 impl. in linux-2.5 and in gentoo-sources) > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17681 > > I use IPv6 - so I needed the tools. > > drip-0.9.0cvs3 (the one in portage was hopelessly outdated) > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19690 > > I wanted to try it out :) > > And also an ipv6calc one - but that got in after Guy Martin fixed a > small problem :) > > But I haven't gotten any feedback on the rest of the ebuilds :( > > Is there no interest in these? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list