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 4.62) (envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-19012-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>) id 1GnXi8-0004kF-TF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:51:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kAO9oKSM031731; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:50:20 GMT Received: from mo-p02-ob.rzone.de (mo-p02-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.170]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAO9lix8017006 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:47:44 GMT Received: from v250 (at-226.customer.internl.net [217.149.203.226]) by post.webmailer.de (klopstock mo18) (RZmta 3.4) with ESMTP id iAO85KQC04e6eF for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:47:24 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:47:24 +0100 (MET) From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <4564BC3C.1080008@gentoo.org> <20061122232934.GS12483@woodpecker.gentoo.org> <456575E0.6010006@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <456575E0.6010006@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1235549.xe3nlBLnNq"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200611241047.19228.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 2a45ffa7-2e03-4d39-b23f-5b4a967f03a0 X-Archives-Hash: 23fb0badbd166d58dacae7ef3f2fd7c5 --nextPart1235549.xe3nlBLnNq Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 23 November 2006 11:20, Jakub Moc wrote: > Bryan =D8stergaard napsal(a): > > I think the most important thing about adding "empty" metadata.xml files > > with maintainer-needed as maintainer is that it _changes_ the package to > > be unmaintained by definition (that's what maintainer-needed means after > > all) and that we can't be sure that's actually true unless we spend a > > lot of time examining each package and asking potential maintainers > > if it's unmaintained. > > Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on > adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone, > I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P). This will either force > them to reclaim their packages via fixing the metadata.xml thing or will > leave the ebuilds orphaned to m-needed - and then they shouldn't have > been added in the first place. > > Above, I'm not talking about legacy stuff maintained in an ad-hoc manner > for ages, but about fairly recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even > less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people > from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to > metadata.xml - will make assigning bugs much easier for me. ;) Repoman should check for missing metadata. The only packages that are allow= ed=20 not to have metadata.xml would be those that have not been changed for over= 3=20 years (since the introduction of metadata.xml). Developers who violate the= =20 repoman checks by omitting a metadata.xml brought mayhem over themselves. Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --nextPart1235549.xe3nlBLnNq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQBFZr+nbKx5DBjWFdsRAiYFAJ4/f+Jvwu8h8UKh6cW8ZDInxxjBoACgg3bc s7a1W5emII1AK6SrA0mEtIE= =cUi1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1235549.xe3nlBLnNq-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list