субота, 28. жовтень 2006 05:23, David Shakaryan Ви написали: > Alec Warner wrote: > > I request that this tag be made optional in the metadata.xml DTD. > > ++ > > In my opinion, an empty tag or one with "no-herd" is rather silly when > the requirement for the tag can just be removed. Which is exactly why these are disallowed. Or at least that was the original intention, which (unfortunately) was not enforced strong enough. But then, given that we started with *no herds at all*, I don't see how it would be possible to realistically enforce from the beginning. Now it looks like we are actually strating to "get there". Besides, there is no "no-herd" tag, no matter what excuses people putting it in the metadata come up with.
> The alternative is, of course, requiring every package to belong to a > real herd. Which is exactly the case. This is the policy, as it was set from the introduction of herds. Unfortunately, as I said, because it was technically infeasible right from the beginning, it was not vigorously enforced, but, as Mike, mentioned, there is no reason we cannot finally start doing this now. > Although this is not impossible, it would be quite hard to > implement as quite a few packages do not really fit into any existing > category, as you mentioned in #-dev. Also, someone will have to go > through the ~2000 packages and figure out what herd they belong to, > which seems like a strenuous job. What is it now < 20%? Phew. I am sure treecleaners would tell you that their estimate of "stale" ebuilds in portage goes over that percentage ;). Besides, in the beginning unherded ebuilds were at 100%. One of the reasons herds were introduced was to explicitly see what packages lack maintenance. It is possible for the ebuild to be in the herd, but be supported by the developer not on the herd. See the <role> tag. Also, there can be one-dev herds. George -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
