On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:29:32 -0400 Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To that end, it's been brought up that perhaps the metadata.xml files > are partly to blame, in that they imply that the package is maintained > by a herd. There is not maintainer-team listed, just a herd. > > So, I would like to propose that we make this distinction clearer in > the metadata.xml files. I'm interested in thoughts that people have > on this, but please do cc: me in your response to be assured that I > read it. I must admit I've assumed that the herd entry in metadata.xml is a reasonable fall-back if the maintainer entry is missing or the listed maintainer is away/not responding. This is implied by http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/index.xml which requires <herd> but not <maintainer> - also the description of <maintainer> says "Besides being a member of a herd, a package can also be maintained directly" which implies the herd is the default maintainer if maintainer is not present. The herds project description says, "The herds project aims to ensure that the growing number of ebuilds do not overwelm (sic) the gentoo project. To this end the herds project aims for the development of infrastructure that will help manage the collection of ebuilds". This clearly indicates herds are supposed to have a maintainer role. A quick scan of the tree shows that some 6k+ packages have no maintainer entry. It would be useful to know how many people think herds are not maintainers - if only a few people think this then I suggest it would be better to accept the common interpretation of herd as a group of people who can maintain a package. -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
