-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/23/2012 03:40 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 23/11/12 09:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Ian Stakenvicius >> <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> .. For certain things, I think it would be very beneficial >>> for this to be true (other dev's welcome to touch) across the >>> tree. Maybe if there is enough general support for it, we >>> should change our default of "never touch a maintainer's >>> package without permission of the maintainer/herd", to "OK to >>> touch unless package metadata explicitly requests not to" ...? >>> And we can put a tag in the metadata to indicate this (or even >>> to indicate what other dev's can and can't touch -- ie, can >>> touch *DEPEND, can bump EAPI, cannot add features, cannot >>> bump)? > >> Honestly, I like the maintainer/herd system - it promotes some >> kind of consistency and accountability. If everybody just goes >> poking at random ebuilds anytime they want to then that will tend >> to lead to chaos. > > > I'm not suggesting to abandon that, just augment it a little. > There are dev's that want strict do-not-touch-my-stuff control, and > dev's that don't really care. Defining as such in metadata would > keep a persistent record. > > I can think of two specific examples where this would be an > advantage: > > #1 - the init-script-license issue. When I filed all of those > bugs, there were a few dev's that said to me "Do what you want to > fix the LICENSE= on your own", many others didn't but i'm guessing > that didn't mean they actually explicitly desired to control > LICENSE=. Similarly, I have absolutely no problem at all of > someone fixes LICENSE= in any of my packages -- I set them properly > as best I could and I try and watch out for changes, but if there's > someone that knows better I say "just do it."
I'd rather say let's make a policy for this particular case. Changing the license should not break any package, so there is no need for review if you are sure about the fix. Even if it turns out you were wrong... well. > > #2 - sub-slots and slot-operators. Adoption of this will go a lot > faster if the maintainers of libraries had free reign to update > *DEPEND in rdeps when necessary. Some of this already happens, > but having permission to adjust *DEPEND be explicitly listed would > make it go quicker still and not cause the inevitable arguments > that it always seems to.. > This might require bumping the EAPI which is not always safe, so it should go through the maintainer unless he says there is no need to. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQr435AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWztTQIAKBMUFivjl1B/UOHoowzODsE jFyl0b4gQVwpfSnrZnxcLFkq+oU41BdLvdl4jD7EkYAnLl9fmGTlCF2VjJoGHopg g70hRXU/jpzJb5J2qNSfAbvg1maouD0Q/cld4QpNF8b6IN9afinGaeRHYpFp9xlL EydqrNeQh06gCpKTzDbYEdcB27yRDESvHMQgrdtU4fFr1SRsAJw9o5Nf5o2CcgFH XoO1T4g4HMs0B0w1oLU1YoCvXkmGP6fDRvcY5hpRQ8C/0LlEtoK4YuyIruOkMBLB rQ+xuJulVm47Qdx1tv4Vb3dJM7gudOT+pyS2HQXqzAPiAMEPlxhDkqWlbYp5QCQ= =UjuT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
