[gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

The metadata cleanup continues...	

A list of 427 packages found at 

      http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/herd-metadata-check.log

do not have the required <herd> tag in their metadata.xml[1].

Is it reasonable to simply add the <herd>no-herd</herd> or should perhaps 
the policy be relaxed, such that a missing <herd> tag is equivalent with 
<herd>no-herd</herd>?

kind regards
Thilo

[1] Gentoo Development Guide - Package and Category metadata.xml 
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/metadata/index.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Mike Doty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thilo Bangert wrote:
> The metadata cleanup continues...	
> 
> A list of 427 packages found at 
> 
>       http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/herd-metadata-check.log
> 
> do not have the required <herd> tag in their metadata.xml[1].
> 
> Is it reasonable to simply add the <herd>no-herd</herd> or should perhaps 
> the policy be relaxed, such that a missing <herd> tag is equivalent with 
> <herd>no-herd</herd>?
> 
> kind regards
> Thilo
> 
> [1] Gentoo Development Guide - Package and Category metadata.xml 
> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/misc-files/metadata/index.html
iirc there was a flamewar about this a while ago.  you should look at
the archives to see what people decided.

- --
=======================================================
Mike Doty                      kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo Council
Gentoo Infrastructure
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6  F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05
=======================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBRkM+KoBrouQZ9K4FAQIfigP+K447icY7rWKLnltRkm+omZqVGfj5AbwE
ahY3UlIb/McOxor+IDwbw05BJ85Mys1fVdB4NWK6UZJu3bGLA2Gl4nHHQJjnwp1b
FPHeE/C15E1U0lkuY0AppH/ABOEi3Sdw9gMxlQTQvLD/qTQ1+thcMrBvYjb1r7DH
5H23iAxxB6U=
=kmPd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

> >
> > Is it reasonable to simply add the <herd>no-herd</herd> or should
> > perhaps the policy be relaxed, such that a missing <herd> tag is
> > equivalent with <herd>no-herd</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 
unclear, which is why it needs to be addressed again.

either we decide to relax the policy and change the documentation, or we 
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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 216 bytes --]

On Thursday 10 May 2007 19:38:13 Thilo Bangert wrote:
> /me goes back to reading up on some history:

missing metadata.xml - 2006-11-22
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/44407

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2280 bytes --]


>  you should look at
> the archives to see what people decided.

from reading the archives and the response so far as well as the current 
documentation on the subject i conclude that the issue is still not clear 
and people make up their own stuff as they go along.

the following may be a formalisation of current (best) practices:

 - maintainers fall into three categories. herds, gentoo developers and
   non-gentoo proxy maintainers.

 -  a herd is defined in herds.xml. exception: no-herd. no-herd is limited
    to the situation where no suitable herd can be found.

 - a gentoo developer is defined in dev-rel/roll-call/userinfo.xml.

 - every ebuild has a herd.

 - a package can belong to more than one herd.

 - a package can be maintened by no or more parties.

 - a package with herd different from 'no-herd' is said to be maintained
   by the members of that herd.

 - all maintainers different from herds state their maintainership using
   the <maintainer> tag. the <maintainer> tag requires the <email> tag.

 - a package with herd 'no-herd' and no additional maintainers  is said to
   be unmaintained.

 - a <maintainer> of maintainer-needed@g.o indicates no maintainership and
   is only allowed as the sole maintainer. meaning a single <maintainer>
   tag and a single <herd>no-herd</herd> tag. infact it is semantically
   equivalent to a single <herd>no-herd</herd> tag and no additional
   maintainers.

 - a package that is proxy maintained needs an additional gentoo
   association in form of a maintaining herd or gentoo developer.
   maintainer-needed@g.o may be such an association, but only if the
   original one disappeared.

optionally one may want to include, although personally i prefer to state 
it explicitly:

 - a missing or empty <herd> tag is equivalent to <herd>no-herd</herd>

open questions:

 - what does it mean when the package is maintained by a herd and an
   additional maintainer? how does one determine the order in which to
   contact multiple maintainers?

 - are there situations in which we specify a <herd> other than no-herd
   but don't want its members to act as maintainers?

...

what are your current best practices regarding metadata?
regards
Thilo

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Ryan Hill]

Thilo Bangert wrote:

> open questions:
> 
>  - what does it mean when the package is maintained by a herd and an
>    additional maintainer? how does one determine the order in which to
>    contact multiple maintainers?

See "Planning for automatic assignment of bugs"
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/48485)


-- 
                                where to now? if i had to guess
dirtyepic gentoo org        i'm afraid to say antarctica's next
9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] missing <herd> tag in metadata.xml

[Thilo Bangert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1051 bytes --]

Hi again,

Thilo Bangert <bangert@gentoo.org> said:
> The metadata cleanup continues...
>
> A list of 427 packages found at
>
>       http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/herd-metadata-check.log
>
> do not have the required <herd> tag in their metadata.xml[1].

some of these have <herd> tags afterall - albeit empty.
i will be fixing these over the next few days, adding 
<herd>no-herd</herd>.

a current run has yielded the following statistics:

Found 0 packages with retired maintainer
Found 1517 packages with unknown maintainer
Found 11 packages with invalid proxy maintainer
Found 395 packages with missing <herd>
Found 4 packages with invalid <herd>
Found 33 packages with empty <herd>
Found 606 unmaintained packages
Found 0 packages with missing metadata.xml
11665 Packges checked, 2566 errors detected

see the full log at

    http://dev.gentoo.org/~bangert/metadata-check.log

the large number of unknow maintainers are largely due to herd email 
addresses listed in <maintainer> tags...

kind regards
Thilo

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]