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 1EEu2I-000536-9G
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:32:14 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8CJPloo015675;
Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:25:47 GMT
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.201])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8CJM0kg021772
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:22:02 GMT
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i23so1788483wra
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=Iav8+xNojfVi0J0bsOYjFRA718ZqYrpt+SVOU1f7mF5+b+kzH2hl+QdgwG8CL1sGTnnSD40rxUoRLnu0YhHgU6Mbg2nd1171nKvn5KJ6CqP+PxyCkwcc9HWspnDeSdvdqkHBSqYJo3saY2w66+9NjdmohQrsh6zBzhD/6z7Hcm4=
Received: by 10.54.35.18 with SMTP id i18mr2313763wri;
Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.111.17 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46059ce1050912122677c3f85e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:26:26 -0400
From: Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: ROX: maintainer-wanted and apps out of date
In-Reply-To: <200509122053.32423.carlo@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1126447110.10560.13.camel@localhost>
<200509121932.37955.carlo@gentoo.org>
<1087814765.20050912195620@gentoo.org>
<200509122053.32423.carlo@gentoo.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j8CJM0kg021772
X-Archives-Salt: a8b6c622-7894-406b-875c-6dfbc12fc620
X-Archives-Hash: d1bfe79496b261545cb1021da5bfefa9
The problem is, trying to fix ebuilds in tree is a lot more
complicated.. You have to fight with multiple herds, and multiple
developers, and explain to them why it should occur, in order to get
anything to happen.. In addition, even a global gigantic one liner to
add quotes to $D and $S would cause huge rsync loads... which makes
the mirror admins hate you... Combine this with the first issue, and
just improving the incoming ebuilds and hoping that the devs watching
this list pay attention, and make some of these changes in newly added
ebuilds, will improve the quality of the tree slowly.
If a user submits an ebuild, they should be prepared to make fixes to
bring it up to a standard. Many of the ebuilds do not even follow
ebuild-submit.xml, and the maintainer fixing them only causes more
problems for other maintainers further down, assuming the user submits
multiple ebuilds. Once they learn the rules, later ebuilds will
hopefully be up to the same standards.
On 9/12/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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
> ongoing effort keeping it up to date, applying patches, interact with
> upstream developers, test, stabilize,... To me it absolutely doesn't matter,
>
> 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
> interest to get an ebuild 100% perfect. WONTFIX will look like PISSOFF for
> 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
> those
> in bugzilla.
>
>
> Carsten
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list