From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IH66i-0008Mv-9C for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:58:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l73Mvj4I023356; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:57:45 GMT Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l73Mrfte016804 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 22:53:41 GMT Received: from [10.73.1.30] (uberpc.marples.name [10.73.1.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96568190038 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:53:41 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some ideas on how to reduce territoriality From: Roy Marples To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1186178767.8470.47.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> References: <1186178767.8470.47.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:53:41 +0100 Message-Id: <1186181621.3314.6.camel@uberpc.marples.name> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: eb6c25a3-bbe0-4c7a-ae58-16cf5ba6b6c7 X-Archives-Hash: 959cc596555d8a285a25bbbe000ed009 On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 15:06 -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > More and more, I am finding developers who are afraid to touch packages > for even minor things if they're not the maintainer. This is a sad > state of affairs and not the reason we have maintainers. We have > maintainers to assure that a package is being taken care of, not to > establish some kind of "territory" over that package. Because of this > misconception, I would like to come up with and document a listing of > things that any ebuild developer can feel free to do to any package > *without* maintainer consent. These are generally all minor things, but > things that I think are important. I'm going to list off the things > that I can think of, and encourage everyone else to speak up if I've > missed something. Arch bugs that obviously don't affect other arches. An example of this is the pine/uw-imap/c-client stuff which does this make lnx Great! Make linux. Sucks for FreeBSD so I've been changing it to if use elibc_FreeBSD ; then make bsf else make lnx fi Obviously that's very simplified, but you get the idea. In this case I don't expect the ebuild maintainer to use Gentoo/FreeBSD. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list