Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date

[Peter Hyman <pete4abw@comcast.net>]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 16:28 +0200, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:03:17AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Many users seem to think
> > that a WONTFIX is non-negotiable.  I tend to agree with them, for the
> > most part.  Rather than WONTFIX them, simply tell them that they won't
> > be included as-is.  WONTFIX gives the user the impression that we are
> > not interested in their work or the package, when this is not the case.
> 
> But if a developer tells them what is wrong and to reopen the bug when
> they've fixed it, it shouldn't be a problem. And that's what I've seen
> in this case.
> 

I think you all misunderstand MY position on this. I provided ebuilds in
the hope it would save the maintainers time and effort. If the work I
did is 90% to spec, then there really is no reason for the maintainer
NOT to take it, tweak it, and maybe send a note or add a comment to the
bug as to what was fixed. It would ensure two things: 1) that the user
will (hopefully) not make the same mistake again, and 2) get the ebuild
upstream quicker.

Sending it back to the contributor only will waste more time.

The ROX situation is different though since it appears the two
maintainers have apparently gone AWOL. This, of course, I would not know
as a user/contributor. My frustration came out of inaction by the absent
maintainers.

However, the comments I got back along with the WONTFIX was AS IF I was
a maintainer and should have known better. That is incorrect. Had I
known there was no maintainer, then the delay on the ebuilds' inclusion
into portage would have been better understood.

But be cognizant of WHO is submitting ebuilds and provide guidance and
support according to that. A user cannot be expected to know all there
is to know about ebuilds. Some users just don't care. BUT they care
enough to try and keep packages up to date. There's the difference.
-- 
Peter

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list