On Saturday 28 October 2006 02:46, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 08:11:37AM +0200, George Shapovalov wrote: > > 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. > > I have a number of specialized packages that I maintain, such as > sys-block/qla-fc-firmware, that cannot be classified as any existing > herd, and are specialized enough inventing a new herd for them would not > really help.
declaring no herd for maintainership here makes sense ... requiring a <herd> tag and forcing it to "no-herd" keeps things explicit ... on the topic of finding unmaintained packages: if there is no herd and no maintainer, should we just cut metadata.xml ? or do we recommend people to stick in <herd>no-herd</herd> ? the former would help with people sticking in bogus things like a maintainer of bug-wranglers (really maintainer-needed would make more sense) ... -mike
pgpVSUh7xWDv3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
