From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IyixF-0005s0-Ji for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:09:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with SMTP id lB278ciY029947; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:08:38 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.2/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lB276k3b027641 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:06:46 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.100] (ip72-220-190-134.sd.sd.cox.net [72.220.190.134]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3CC652AF for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 07:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <47525980.1070900@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:06:40 -0800 From: Josh Saddler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for December References: <20071201104508.14A2B64F70@smtp.gentoo.org> <20071202012848.GA7091@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20071202012848.GA7091@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigCA2DB32EE261A56AF637A02C" X-Archives-Salt: 4f5a1c5e-1626-4605-ba8c-6285d6b6bd2f X-Archives-Hash: a528c083941d4e440c7d896ca269eb17 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigCA2DB32EE261A56AF637A02C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jose Luis Rivero wrote: > I would suggest this kind of question based on the different ideas show= n > by the developers comunity: >=20 > - What is proper way to make changes to ebuild related information > (metadata.dtd)? Do we need a GLEP? It only need to be discussed in -= dev > first? Gentoo-doc is who control metadata.dtd? Eh? News to me. No, we in the GDP don't control it. In viewing the history [1], I see that neysx did make one commit to it, but that's because he's a go-to guy for xml/dtd stuff in general, not because this file is under the sole control of the GDP. We're not the ebuild developers/writers . . . you are. Granted, we do have commit access to that part of gentoo/xml/, but we're not the be-all and end-all for suggested changes to metadata.dtd. Something the council might want to keep in mind. [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/dtd/metadata.dtd?r= ev=3D1.6&view=3Dlog --------------enigCA2DB32EE261A56AF637A02C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUlmD5aFMlhMsVyURAnUoAJ9n6Jr+NeWa2p6DLuEeK/bxZYRa2QCgqBmN B6Ue41n/5XYL7Sou0spaCOc= =wLcV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigCA2DB32EE261A56AF637A02C-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list