From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RtEt6-0006mO-LS for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:52:56 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A893DE05EB; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:52:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1F47E052E for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.12.187.31] (193-64-22-26-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [193.64.22.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADCA91B401F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F2B9F90.4050909@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:49:20 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120114 Thunderbird/9.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages masked for lack of maintainer, but metadata.xml says otherwise References: <4F2B1490.2010108@gentoo.org> <201202021844.35404.vapier@gentoo.org> <4F2B340B.4050008@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4F2B340B.4050008@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ed24342c-c609-4364-95e3-fe8b21cf1f4b X-Archives-Hash: eed49c0d17a1f6e4c73fb012ad2795c6 On 02/03/2012 03:10 AM, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Mike Frysinger schrieb: >> On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1= =BB=85n >> wrote: >>> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack >>> of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list >>> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in >>> searching for a new maintainer. >> >> if there is no and no, then >> "maintainer-needed@g.o" is implicit. why do we need to explicitly >> list it ? -mike > > If that is the case, then removing would also be ok. But my point was > that the packages still had other maintainers listed. In hylafax's case, the package has been broken since the addition of=20 tiff-4.0.0_beta5, which got added to tree "12 May 2010" Both tiff and hylafax are with nerdboy as maintainer. At this point I've=20 looked at the commitrate of said maintainer With version bump request open from year ago Now that tiff-4 is going stable, the breakage enters stable tree. In the lastrite mail, I've sent the mail also directly to the=20 maintainer, CCing him. I've never got any reply, and the bugs don't have=20 any comment from the marked maintainer Personally I hope someone who can also test the runtime, would commit=20 hylafax+ instead of fixing hylafax to tree (bug 168890). Or both. So it was really 2+2=3D4 which lead to this, all the things combined,=20 case-by-case review, and I'm not sure the situation can even be=20 reflected by the metadata.xml. Except the maintainer could have removed himself from it, when he=20 realized he doesn't have enough time or intrest for it Overall I think the lastrites had the desired effect of causing enough=20 buzz around it for other people to notice/get intrest to it