From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <marko@seul.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_03_06,
	DMARC_NONE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=4.0.0
Received: from obelix.spectraweb.ch (obelix.plusnet.ch [194.158.230.8])
	by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D3FABD95
	for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun,  9 Jun 2002 10:55:58 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from seul.org (adsl-p42-dialup-89.adslplus.ch [195.141.144.89])
	by obelix.spectraweb.ch (8.11.2/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id g59Ftp010681
	for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:55:52 +0200
Message-ID: <3D03CE3D.2080603@seul.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:53:01 -0400
From: Marko Mikulicic <marko@seul.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Contribute many ebuilds at once
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1020609173233.29387E-100000@pluto.prosalg.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev>,
	<mailto:gentoo-dev-request@gentoo.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/>
X-Archives-Salt: 09208dea-a57e-4319-83d4-97574de52122
X-Archives-Hash: a5b78e2ffe9722f7dac4cb9759db9b47

Karl Trygve Kalleberg wrote:
> 

> 
> The biggest problem for the maintainers is the varying quality of ebuilds.
> Few, if any submissions are correct on the first go, and many of the
> bugs/problems identified could be checked programmatically.
> 
> Submissions should then be run through a "screening" script that checks
> for syntactic and semantic completeness, verifies dependencies,
> well-formedness of ebuild, digest, changelog, etc.
> 
> If any of these tests fail, the submitter is notified, and no developers'
> time is wasted needlessly until the ebuild script follows all the basic
> guidelines and its sources actually compile.
> 

insightful.
Do you have a prototype of this new system or the "screening" script ?

Should the package submitter decide in which cathegory its'
package should go, and how should the RCS string (in ChangeLog + 
*.ebuild's third line) be formatted ?

Marko