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 ) id 1HmChT-0000R1-Oy for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:45:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4AHhZXa016776; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:43:35 GMT Received: from snowy.fizzelpark.com (snowy.fizzelpark.com [85.25.140.198]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l4AHeFHR011483 for ; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:40:15 GMT Received: (qmail 17112 invoked from network); 10 May 2007 17:40:15 -0000 Received: from 212.242.130.102 ([212.242.130.102]) by mail.fizzelpark.com ([85.25.252.58]) with ESMTP via SSL; 10 May 2007 17:40:15 -0000 From: Thilo Bangert Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing tag in metadata.xml Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:38:13 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200705101738.42962.bangert@gentoo.org> <46433E31.4070107@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <46433E31.4070107@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="nextPart1178825566.ZtMOf3jpMt"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200705101938.16111.bangert@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 57604d8e-851d-49d4-b0f3-0950af0204f0 X-Archives-Hash: 553a674cd470b0eb01d5fcca5f398e32 --nextPart1178825566.ZtMOf3jpMt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline > > > > Is it reasonable to simply add the no-herd or should > > perhaps the policy be relaxed, such that a missing tag is > > equivalent with no-herd? > > iirc there was a flamewar about this a while ago. you should look at > the archives to see what people decided. whatever the outcome of the discussion was, the current situation is still= =20 unclear, which is why it needs to be addressed again. either we decide to relax the policy and change the documentation, or we=20 dont and fix the ebuilds. /me goes back to reading up on some history: The Dreaded herd tag - 2006-10-28 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/43733 Herds suck, fix them - 2006-06-15 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/39385 Please use land-misc herd where appropriate! No no-herd madness!!! 2004-10-07 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/21899 Packages with non-existent herd in metadata.xml - 2004-09-27 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/21633 kind regards Thilo --nextPart1178825566.ZtMOf3jpMt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBGQ1iIxRElEoA5AncRAgbBAKDUZ+1SlFLRCyMFdBAHYc79ZOXLpQCfYR25 m2RSIPDYziQA9x8g76lF7bc= =qfIQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1178825566.ZtMOf3jpMt-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list