On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 03:05 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > 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 ...
That's what I think is best. > 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) ... Well, we enforce the maintainer tag if herd is no-herd. Then, we only allow valid devs, and maintainer-needed in maintainer. That should resolve the problem. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
