On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:16AM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote: > Bryan Østergaard napsal(a): > > I think the most important thing about adding "empty" metadata.xml files > > with maintainer-needed as maintainer is that it _changes_ the package to > > be unmaintained by definition (that's what maintainer-needed means after > > all) and that we can't be sure that's actually true unless we spend a > > lot of time examining each package and asking potential maintainers > > if it's unmaintained. > > Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on > adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone, > I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P). This will either force > them to reclaim their packages via fixing the metadata.xml thing or will > leave the ebuilds orphaned to m-needed - and then they shouldn't have > been added in the first place. > > Above, I'm not talking about legacy stuff maintained in an ad-hoc manner > for ages, but about fairly recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even > less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people > from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to > metadata.xml - will make assigning bugs much easier for me. ;) > I not quite as concerned whether your job is "easy" or not as I am that we don't lie about maintainers in metadata.xml. Wrong metadata.xml files affects a lot more people (devs as well as users) than just bug-wranglers.
Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
