On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49 -0500 NP-Hardass <np-hard...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was > wondering what the community thinks about them, and some possible > solutions. > > There is a large number of packages from unclaimed herds that, at this > time, look like they will not be claimed by developers. This will > likely result in a huge increase in maintainer-needed packages (and > subsequent package rot). This isn't to say that some of these > packages weren't previously in a "maintainer-needed" like state, but > now, they will explicitly be there. I don't understand why you're turning this problem upside-down. The problem was, is and will be that packages are unmaintained. Not that stats show that they are many. It's better to have packages maintainer-needed than 'maintained' by developers who ignore bugs, requests and basically act as showstoppers for people who want to fix stuff. > A possible approach to reducing this is to adopt some new policies. > > The first of which is an "adopt-a-package" type program. In > functionality, this is no different than proxy-maintenance, however, > this codifies it into an explicit policy whereby users are encouraged > to step and take over a package. This obviously requires a greater > developer presence in the proxy-maint project (or something similar), > but, personally, I think that a stronger dev presence in proxy-maint > would be better for Gentoo as a whole. That's not really a change. Additional advertisement at best. > The second policy change would be that maintainer-needed packages can > have updates by anyone while maintaining the standard "you fix it if > you break it" policy. This would extend to users as well. With the > increased ease that users can contribute via git/github, they should > be encouraged to contribute and have their efforts facilitated to ease > contributions to whatever packages they desire (within the > maintainer-needed category). This is already the case. > Similar to the concept of a "bugday," coupled with above, an > "ebuildday" where users and devs get together so users can learn to > write ebuilds and for devs to work together to maintain packages that > usually fall outside their normal workload could prove beneficial to > the overall health of Gentoo packaging. > > Once again, these are just some random musings inspired by recent > events on the dev ML, and thought it might be worth discussing. > I've cc'd proxy-maint as a lot of this discussion is likely to involve > them, and would like them to put in their official opinion as well. If you want to do some fun coding, here's my idea: find reverse dependencies of maintainer-needed packages, and try to convince the maintainers of those revdeps to take those packages. After all, those revdeps require the packages, and are going to benefit from them being maintained. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpjEGOJS2Vhg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
