FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-22-2011, 03:19 PM
Dane Smith
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

All,
As some of you may have seen, over the past couple months I've been
serving as a proxy-maintainer on a number of packages for a fair few
proxy-committeers through what I've been calling C1phers Adopt a Package
Program [1]. So far, I would consider it to be a success. A fair few
packages have been adopted (over 15 at this point IIRC). There are a
couple problems with this existing in the way that it does however.
1) I am the sole point of contact for all of these packages.
2) It is not really "official". A blog post that some people have seen
doesn't really attract a ton of users to get involved. (Though it's done
better than I would have guessed).
3) As it grows, it becomes a fair bit of work for the one guy involved
(me) =P.

Now, I know there are a fair few packages in the tree that have other
proxy-maintainers. (I'm too lazy to get a real number, so sue me.) So
here is what I think would be a good idea to do.

Create a formal Gentoo project with its own herd and alias. Whenever a
packages has a proxy-maintainer, instead of having 2 maintainer entries
(one for the user, one for the dev), have the users contact information,
and put the package in the herd associated with the project. (Say
proxy-maintained with the alias proxy-maintained@g.o.) From there, users
that want to have something committed can use the alias, and any dev
that's helping with that project can review it quickly and commit it for
them. Or if they so choose, they can add themselves to the metadata in
addition to the herd and it will be left to them as long as they get to
it in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise someone else can step in
and help out.

I think this serves a fair few purposes. First off, I would imagine it
will take a pretty decent dent out of our growing count of m-n packages.
It makes life easier for the proxy-maintainers and their committers. It
allows users who want to proxy-maintain something to find the group of
people who will help out rather than having to put a call out on the
mailing lists. And, it will mean that users involved in the project can
get some recognition on the project page.

I do realize there is a small amount of overlap with the already
existent Sunrise package, however, given that usually Sunrise serves as
a home for m-w packages, I think this can help fill the gap left for the
m-n packages. (And help provide a logical transition from Sunrise to
Portage).

Well, that about covers it. What does everyone think? Good idea? Bad
idea? Waste of time? Are you crazy? Let's hear it!

Thanks!

[1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/

- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOAggbAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxLKQP+waNFwYgfW cm1eJDfIk7sY0+
EhZ0yHGVo/aOZ4P/SZMqb1tjf8tgNwaQV8dkPLIGvWFZ4ThExHRJ2FEANakAZgp4
TJCM004xQvX5TQ6QkmQVdTbHqyq0AMZukF3lAsOUWfWfYH776M HR+dKTfpDZg7Gt
RvAHjEknHbqvaMZEEqF2rLCV9Gzlg4LxQnz/VaoTt0662o5jlCVltJAqYX094rgi
ZAesyeEcy1/1cgKes44/2a6ETbV/isD4UgU0KZHz8Msu8gtE1OWk+ZBoCfE5mYmb
D8/xZGx/irdzQMm3aVQviHKZEQMaz70/zpGCfmrmYQSOR232FMJEN4tErMys5Z2D
lQ4QfeOTwhHsRFPVFZmg0QD9TMcgAI2Uc+Ck32JOHLIrLOw02t UIh00Danjp4TBK
ctNong4g6ayG0BUKByrFP5zrfUV3vQE5L/cul4JlPKbhqGdLl1RpxjqpUG1lCteX
FSafKH2aoct2YMTHs1ve0FO3zwsMzo1k7MWWTZWdGmJG9S2GwB Qs0yGvtAYwqVQ7
csCkwiROtSUMJzgi4SlBGuZpZ1qemy2CSXIeatYz9ol4W/ixZj6FMw66TbZb+Hjg
ZXt5vFX3N2qwqZwl6GHSQCkV/EhaPKSoecN5i4kO052NtOTblRXlsISJiptuLqR9
h1raPYZxIQ8ZoW3elR6z
=y21y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-22-2011, 03:19 PM
Dane Smith
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

All,
As some of you may have seen, over the past couple months I've been
serving as a proxy-maintainer on a number of packages for a fair few
proxy-committeers through what I've been calling C1phers Adopt a Package
Program [1]. So far, I would consider it to be a success. A fair few
packages have been adopted (over 15 at this point IIRC). There are a
couple problems with this existing in the way that it does however.
1) I am the sole point of contact for all of these packages.
2) It is not really "official". A blog post that some people have seen
doesn't really attract a ton of users to get involved. (Though it's done
better than I would have guessed).
3) As it grows, it becomes a fair bit of work for the one guy involved
(me) =P.

Now, I know there are a fair few packages in the tree that have other
proxy-maintainers. (I'm too lazy to get a real number, so sue me.) So
here is what I think would be a good idea to do.

Create a formal Gentoo project with its own herd and alias. Whenever a
packages has a proxy-maintainer, instead of having 2 maintainer entries
(one for the user, one for the dev), have the users contact information,
and put the package in the herd associated with the project. (Say
proxy-maintained with the alias proxy-maintained@g.o.) From there, users
that want to have something committed can use the alias, and any dev
that's helping with that project can review it quickly and commit it for
them. Or if they so choose, they can add themselves to the metadata in
addition to the herd and it will be left to them as long as they get to
it in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise someone else can step in
and help out.

I think this serves a fair few purposes. First off, I would imagine it
will take a pretty decent dent out of our growing count of m-n packages.
It makes life easier for the proxy-maintainers and their committers. It
allows users who want to proxy-maintain something to find the group of
people who will help out rather than having to put a call out on the
mailing lists. And, it will mean that users involved in the project can
get some recognition on the project page.

I do realize there is a small amount of overlap with the already
existent Sunrise package, however, given that usually Sunrise serves as
a home for m-w packages, I think this can help fill the gap left for the
m-n packages. (And help provide a logical transition from Sunrise to
Portage).

Well, that about covers it. What does everyone think? Good idea? Bad
idea? Waste of time? Are you crazy? Let's hear it!

Thanks!

[1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/

- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOAggbAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxLKQP+waNFwYgfW cm1eJDfIk7sY0+
EhZ0yHGVo/aOZ4P/SZMqb1tjf8tgNwaQV8dkPLIGvWFZ4ThExHRJ2FEANakAZgp4
TJCM004xQvX5TQ6QkmQVdTbHqyq0AMZukF3lAsOUWfWfYH776M HR+dKTfpDZg7Gt
RvAHjEknHbqvaMZEEqF2rLCV9Gzlg4LxQnz/VaoTt0662o5jlCVltJAqYX094rgi
ZAesyeEcy1/1cgKes44/2a6ETbV/isD4UgU0KZHz8Msu8gtE1OWk+ZBoCfE5mYmb
D8/xZGx/irdzQMm3aVQviHKZEQMaz70/zpGCfmrmYQSOR232FMJEN4tErMys5Z2D
lQ4QfeOTwhHsRFPVFZmg0QD9TMcgAI2Uc+Ck32JOHLIrLOw02t UIh00Danjp4TBK
ctNong4g6ayG0BUKByrFP5zrfUV3vQE5L/cul4JlPKbhqGdLl1RpxjqpUG1lCteX
FSafKH2aoct2YMTHs1ve0FO3zwsMzo1k7MWWTZWdGmJG9S2GwB Qs0yGvtAYwqVQ7
csCkwiROtSUMJzgi4SlBGuZpZ1qemy2CSXIeatYz9ol4W/ixZj6FMw66TbZb+Hjg
ZXt5vFX3N2qwqZwl6GHSQCkV/EhaPKSoecN5i4kO052NtOTblRXlsISJiptuLqR9
h1raPYZxIQ8ZoW3elR6z
=y21y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-22-2011, 03:33 PM
Markos Chandras
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> - gpg control packet
> All,
> [..]
> Thanks!
>
> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>
Hi Dane,

I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
understand why that effort did not succeed

http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204

- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAgtdAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCj7AQAMVeYzn+L6ejwPrK5FGtdKCF
4hVmooH8qaC+sbD/rpZ5062ITQkVCyjEeHbkNntwZABCt0Y9yqWCW/VxszubkwY4
GLNLGiqTEgrQoLl55K/uENSPtfAIXU8yt67Ta8S6S/6OyW2X6B2SjT/dBm8+CaMq
EZqfRNiN328nlWhEnMgM4ek1BIkARjaqHMPrUfBGTbdUpUBFa/JX8L4CU9HU/geL
IgJScSXHlunFpjKoUZxeCVdt2DWYplvgYQhHrHRL8WkX7yMvPm kOkSu+eYc7cRCR
SiEuNsahz+wZDuww/t6zDPCFfMfaI7pJNp+FfyINN9Lcmmdv7Pu0rZ315++vZ2Yg
oaujXF/UjzYY9LUWZP2LT/ETkWkR08lMQWXgSrkZxFTk/SPnKUCM0gmMO5MGuAwL
QZhDDkVQmGrvnXQgPoG1Iu8H5loQpGehxP/3WWJBC4T6znLwVnuVYcHl/7OGFRRf
s7vHYuszX7NDaTHyB8k7QUsHmlBby4W873RCB87eLQf9mFFLNV 6he4s45i6LoKP+
lTrs4uOZGPlzJViN6DVqSPSVNiRVdF2JqltSwUa6jHOHzA58Wo 5BcEBQMbqvIAhb
4Y6cOtzx/Pv1AtNqA/Cj+C7b+FB67M6SkgfputTJBgR+WMm90RV7gdnpmdvs2h3p
mUQEeB3yOqV/5fMTgve3
=j9u5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-22-2011, 03:36 PM
"Andreas K. Huettel"
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

> Create a formal Gentoo project with its own herd and alias. Whenever a
> packages has a proxy-maintainer, instead of having 2 maintainer entries
> (one for the user, one for the dev), have the users contact information,
> and put the package in the herd associated with the project. (Say
> proxy-maintained with the alias proxy-maintained@g.o.) From there, users
> that want to have something committed can use the alias, and any dev
> that's helping with that project can review it quickly and commit it for
> them.

Good idea!

> I do realize there is a small amount of overlap with the already
> existent Sunrise package, however, given that usually Sunrise serves as
> a home for m-w packages, I think this can help fill the gap left for the
> m-n packages. (And help provide a logical transition from Sunrise to
> Portage).


Given the rather, err, stringent (for lack of a better word) quality control on sunrise, whoever has been committing to sunrise regularly should have no problem in getting his ebuilds into this program as well. It's just an additional way to "graduate"...

Cheers, Andreas


--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
 
Old 06-22-2011, 03:47 PM
Christoph Mende
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> > - gpg control packet
> > All,
> > [..]
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
> >
> Hi Dane,
>
> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
> understand why that effort did not succeed
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204

I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.

Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
there were other concerns.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 04:18 PM
Markos Chandras
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote:
> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>> - gpg control packet
>>> All,
>>> [..]
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>
>> Hi Dane,
>>
>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>
>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
package so users can step up and maintain a package
> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
> there were other concerns.

The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
(assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAhXlAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCOqYP/imZLQGdtZwq4NhebiC/lIC5
yjBcXrqTufYh4mthyfwbsb0p/r2DyVuD+8NKZAhs60Ml6fv9PEXKB9O7SlBT/Yvj
tlaiFjU+kCUfAcONX/prk5BjmFQZl3G+TFA/E4E6aYn0XpNvvC7ZNgxDeGfrojy5
9D8+l9rX2ZC+dxAYX5hABuUsmFU4I/ysTnAyAA0sBFI0FqmGmRNbAcisE2eqbMXt
rDRR0gZthvm1gjw52jAcHIZYEl0NY5MmNvZsuy95mghcLui8WF JFeIDsUFHsYDBA
8RIq6awsnxtNOxjCjiFQSk/9WIB2XxH7IYvgn+8Vm3W4jQIeuvrzkcTNgU5K2sBR
Bw7P0W5uMru+V0SEvcD4wiZn3AWviOH/b4rdqR/JRhRFnb3AnwSjOfeLkWmHH0il
r7hyVxRSqYI0xycntyXogjUPoTPB8tb+xsPwiX8lNfI5Tejh8C Yu+tdYC9uUQfro
GjK6Y7XVrpEON5af4IwG4L26qOWgQSAJhF1vcZYXwxEzy96qh4 1qKtcDsArec+1a
Z1v7N+C0j+LNu9HzmtnYvxPRS/msl2rm9XvJkzY2cgexttTL/xf0fOw41iHmyhA/
jJQ2NXbR9lVO42dHRy9eiaDdXA7RO/Rq24pg9Sc4X0ZI5ZUmVNwHb4re+rp9AJdw
SBIzbWuRBJnqDc3peGzm
=KZsW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-22-2011, 04:26 PM
Christoph Mende
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 19:18 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 22/06/2011 06:47 μμ, Christoph Mende wrote:
> > On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA512
> >>
> >> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
> >>> - gpg control packet
> >>> All,
> >>> [..]
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
> >>>
> >> Hi Dane,
> >>
> >> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
> >> understand why that effort did not succeed
> >>
> >> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
> >
> > I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
> > only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
> > problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
> > maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
> > to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
> > So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
> >
> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
> package so users can step up and maintain a package

Well yes, but with such a project users might notice the packages before
they're about to be removed. Also the important difference is that not
one Gentoo dev does the commits, but many - whoever reads the
mail/ticket/bug/whatever first.

> > Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
> > there were other concerns.
>
> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.

Guess I'm proposing something different then.
 
Old 06-22-2011, 04:30 PM
Dane Smith
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 06:47 , Christoph Mende wrote:
>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>
>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>> All,
>>>> [..]
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>
>>> Hi Dane,
>>>
>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>
>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>> there were other concerns.
>
> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.


Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
primary goal of this "new" project.

- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOAhiPAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxYJwP/0J858aORPU9EVjJZabbzpr3
mZhfp7GpNp4rdT/VWSUTpJuv3CVdPa7ui1dzg0g0liuBybB9+XuGti8MUoOL5mDi
BjvYoF5GDP4G/uxB2R3ZXxEzkBU9uSZk8avzC50l/7i8NZ6GcvZ5UI+A1duCOl2x
L5mJqf1vBiJFyTDD9c4cgLRkc5qe9WpQGKa+qhjot1mVf+dbWI NFDO/V+cqSl8+i
bUCkeg7KbnN0D7UJn7Ue+/0Cw2pNSXx4cWGVKvx+nm4xpfXhXP3/nq6UFeKFxk5u
GtJXZY9i8/BFUQigfieRpNXNeBBTdnj5+ysHvy6Ic7BvW1aSkaWGbXFyy/4RrL5O
b+Q4ZEzvkEqr1nbDU8GUP/qwvlhNlDlg3uGBrilVHK/kknNV4Dq/lHjWHdsWzEY3
JeAd2qXUTokhZ/hkyDJWr+WFZsFwv3xc9tGxypRCudmLxem/xtR0m5zd2eUNC1OJ
ySB9b/H2/1vCie5H3zPn/Enddyx/Djr3ldRGuyZsocaOIX8mv8TWSO8gRJz2vD/9
QhHR+SO5KKcS9kGAwAS7sNhWyfquix3LgusDBHpe62Gjjxp9uH 5SjQhWQTXMf6XU
wnMUlW2jNVRhxCeHp+njpj345VZxbsxj1L7PGrM6QDqdUV6pvZ pOTj1gvirGpLC3
026lEXTtnAnxFK/2Kuql
=jL5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-22-2011, 04:41 PM
Markos Chandras
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 22/06/2011 07:30 μμ, Dane Smith wrote:
> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 ¼¼, Christoph Mende wrote:
>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>
>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>>> All,
>>>>> [..]
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Dane,
>>>>
>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
>> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>>> there were other concerns.
>
>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
>
>
> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
> primary goal of this "new" project.
>
If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to
treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty
much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so
I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We
might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended
goals if needed

[1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOAhtVAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC9D0QAJCYrmc6GCfeU51MICpYf8UY
SfRtX1zmegi1QyDAVfeYLWGAv4rLHfNPIk7WI8qoVeGaBopEU4 W2MvXHmmXe5wC2
wyDBFBSb/qSlEh5eYPwBSuXvTbIDGNX7GhXNmZe3yAoDsx9XrPurygjGO1j F+y5L
GECMt/A+l/7Iha5GyjH4Yh9p5NGJZK/ZNjV8C0YxpYl0QGc1YmOu9jbH/STiPB1/
/aa4aA/usFfmBiss+AWwBOSZnTXMQ2HRJVN/WHmwZBHIN1/4azkTlSKUY6go6xsq
29Y+tt9GUNT2iR1QhtBQ032LIeljq4AYA2ce3p4kIaLUJpVc/mSHYP70zxrW2rVL
35NmEYg/tzENeueDVzl7gzMwLquO7eG8lIRt8oe/RwZSoO2c/XWzBhA4ST07YtjK
DFLndiB8Llwfm+de0UqhMcbritXLs6/QOQGgQ9MseZ/966Y3N9MI5Cqm5aluQsgM
aOZhVN2QmxYWFKp5RCnpszz/s7spbEuhFgXSDfgkKcG+sMcU/LRG544bpLOelkSY
b5bRj3odECrmLbhkCDJYYJ6n9mOyXc1zG8q+kfQqKqsgyumEeY 228t01/5FJBimr
bTtrJetuJB/pJPPD/qzCjrhu+ryiaOzSccLZwxdPZuXRy2gqYadIfCT9L8qq+DzQ
adfCD7d/ffGAlXlTrDIo
=hrZt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 06-22-2011, 04:42 PM
Dane Smith
 
Default RFC: Formal Adopt a Package Program

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/22/11 12:41, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 07:30 , Dane Smith wrote:
>> On 06/22/11 12:18, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On 22/06/2011 06:47 , Christoph Mende wrote:
>>>> On Mi, 2011-06-22 at 18:33 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/06/2011 06:19 ??, Dane Smith wrote:
>>>>>> - gpg control packet
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] http://dev.c1pher.net/index.php/2011/03/c1phers-adopt-a-package-program/
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Dane,
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried to do the same a year ago. Have a look here. It may help you
>>>>> understand why that effort did not succeed
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/209204
>
>>>> I see concerns about to-be-orphaned ebuilds where proxied maintainers
>>>> only care about the ebuild for a short period. This would only be a
>>>> problem with new ebuilds that will be added to the tree with a proxy
>>>> maintainer. Instead of encouraging that, this project could have a goal
>>>> to reduce m-n packages by assigning proxy maintainers.
>>>> So no new packages, only old ones revived. Sounds reasonable to me.
>
>>> This is what treecleaners try to do. Announce the upcoming removal of a
>>> package so users can step up and maintain a package
>>>> Although I didn't read the full thread, so please don't decapitate me if
>>>> there were other concerns.
>
>>> The purpose of Dane's proposal is to push ebuilds to portage tree that
>>> you, as developer, have no interest in them at all, but users do. If the
>>> proxy-maintainer disappears, you can always leave it portage tree as m-n
>>> (assuming no open bugs) or ask treecleaners to remove it.
>
>
>> Yes, that was one aim, but the primary aim is to reduce m-n packages.
>> That's what I've been doing so far and I think is what would be the
>> primary goal of this "new" project.
>
> If this is the primary goal then you should try to merge it to
> treeclears project instead of creating a new one. Treecleaners is pretty
> much the only project that advertises the maintainer-needed packages so
> I think it makes sense to extend this project to meet your needs. We
> might need to rename the treecleaner project to reflect the extended
> goals if needed
>
> [1]http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml

That's a good idea. It would help reduce the number of packages that
have to get 'treecleaned' and it would have the added benefit that it
might attract some much needed help to that project.

Short version: I'm all for that.

- --
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOAhtaAAoJEEsurZwMLhUxfXUP/Alb7xRoK8PfcAo4g9SWGc6G
6JiYgwenUN9OkrtftuSf/SJOTMWmcCop4c0NFM+ci2lxyxGVnrjuvaAgozprJDBQ
yrEw/BOfQS8p70S8VF8kFiDwEUDf96BVOaKc/JL1k4sRI2hza/RgLhLgmNR02lX5
EDaeizLsahOJY1QjL/g3QuvnqbX/Ar0o9uh5kWD3nkryRny7iJTv6DiHLV8c0VKE
OZf21Mm4PGEZU1yJ2/+h2Zzyi0AEZLJmkh02my0266IMhxL2ARBDDgUOA1zh13pw
72Vn+8o8UxwgA25ZtwoP7LkbCVzIjGescqKaU01TUJUgeyy2Y1 A0WOeNC4lGvBgO
Q+ZyIQeoJTWf4N95cn5wwWRonW2VZ01zlnyP/iqoTDJVgHTLSZIcGYvWGfvLZvmk
dO01qi5nfUwkCVB0MyaH8o3EY9vxN2sBjsIgw7kOaEBn9Ea2Ka 0u9Cwfsblkhcx6
kHk6+uurhwE0zYRn1aKXbQURI9c1aJu6Y7xPX2PxGGooo4zli/YhaFKe5RkPWGMK
IMs31ZVYOcm2Q1m6zhkTMw6l/sTUCWoACRGUyORrVFw/iLm33sY9QLe0jFPc/OEW
s+lVlWcl8vt6MOJtX2dcD98Jwqf2LYjeqzvhg/fKv1vjIkd3ynaecSJNdWqozydt
UWOtDHDOoTqFRZ+KzEFy
=dBBx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org