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 4.43) id 1EEtUL-0006Nc-Rz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:57:10 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8CIpawp030473; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:51:36 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8CInAjB024340 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:49:10 GMT Received: from c132231.adsl.hansenet.de ([213.39.132.231] helo=iglu.bnet.local) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EEtQs-0000zI-Qp for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 18:53:35 +0000 From: Carsten Lohrke To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:53:26 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <1126447110.10560.13.camel@localhost> <200509121932.37955.carlo@gentoo.org> <1087814765.20050912195620@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1087814765.20050912195620@gentoo.org> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4099174.Yn0PemztSC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509122053.32423.carlo@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 353c6003-b6dc-4029-ac81-69c2acdb9182 X-Archives-Hash: 02529e7832ccb879c694e49c5c870fba --nextPart4099174.Yn0PemztSC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 12 September 2005 19:56, Jakub Moc wrote: > Since you said above, that you really don't care if those user-submitted > ebuilds will ever get into portage or will stay in maintainer-wanted queue > forever and that's the stuff in portage that actually matters QA-wise, I'm > missing why are you worried about people not submitting their ebuilds any > more. Two points: 1. The biggest share of maintenance isn't getting an ebuild right, but the= =20 ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches, interact with=20 upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it absolutely doesn't matter= ,=20 if an ebuild is broken or not before taking into account to maintain it. 2. People are interested in applications, but may not have the skills or=20 interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like PISSOFF for= =20 them. I think we just look a bit petty-minded. > At the very least, reviewing user-submitted ebuilds and marking things > WONTFIX/CANTFIX/REVIEWED makes it possible to filter out the outdated and > dead-upstream crap, as well as things about which those people who filed > the bugs don't care any more. And, if someone picks those ebuilds up and > decides to maintain them, he can focus more on testing the actual app then > fixing a broken ebuild (or even committing a broken ebuild into the tree). As I said: Ebuilds in Portage should be reviewed before you think about tho= se=20 in bugzilla. Carsten --nextPart4099174.Yn0PemztSC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1-ecc0.1.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDJc6sVwbzmvGLSW8RAqbrAJ9JrXBs2i+5BL2w3Z/y1SRWmybBwgCdF4Oz LP64yyoa8emmrtcscJoyY6Y= =Wp9D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4099174.Yn0PemztSC-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list