On Thursday 23 November 2006 11:20, 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. ;)
Repoman should check for missing metadata. The only packages that are allowed not to have metadata.xml would be those that have not been changed for over 3 years (since the introduction of metadata.xml). Developers who violate the repoman checks by omitting a metadata.xml brought mayhem over themselves. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgp3YMOUSQ20U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
