Re: [gentoo-dev] Contribute many ebuilds at once

[Jeremiah Mahler <jmahler@pacbell.net>]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 02:46:08PM -0400, Marko Mikulicic wrote:
> 
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>gentoo-dev mailing list
> >>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> >>http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> >>
> >
> >Marko, I am not answering your question, but I also have
> >some similar ideas.
> >
> >What about a rating system for ebuilds?
> >
> >A brand new ebuild would start no votes and no rating
> >which indicates it is not been thoroughly used and hence
> >should only be used by those willing to deal with problems.
> >As more people use the ebuild, they rate it and it gets
> >more ratings. If the ratings are bad, people will know
> >to stay away from it. If the ratings are good, people will
> >known that the ebuild should not have problems.
> >
> >I can't think of any reason why this would not work. If anyone
> >knows of one I would like to hear it.
> >
> 
> I think it's a good idea, but still there should be a firm barrier
> from what goes in to "official" distribution and what is
> in the middle zone. This rating could apply to both but I
> think its only really useful in the middle zone (purgatory).
> 
Yes, a "rating" is not a definitive answer such as yes or no.
Good point. Perhaps a rating system with definitive labels.

>  What kind of interface for voting do you have in mind ?
> (how to vote + how to read the rate. integrate with emerge ... ?)

I imagine it as something where the user configures the
minimum level of packages that they are willing to install.
For example, a user might only be willing to install packages
that are stable or rated 4/5 by 20 or more people.

I am not sure how to implement it yet. Where there is a will
there is a way.

> 
> Marko
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Here is my opinion on the whole situation. I think it is
good to allow anyone to make changes for public use,
especially when the process is automated and does not
require any input from an intermediary person. It is very
fast. But it leaves the door open to malicious people.
Rating a package or labeling it as "stable" are possible
solutions for preventing people from using malicious code
or code that is not stable.

So, in summary, the problem I see is that of building a
completely automated development system that is open to
the public and at the same time can give the user ways to
decide in general what level of programs they want to
install (stable, unstable, rated 4/5 or better by 20 or
more people, etc...).

What do you think?

-- 
Jeremiah Mahler
<jmahler@pacbell.net>