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 02-02-2012, 10:21 PM
Markos Chandras
 
Default Packages masked for lack of maintainer, but metadata.xml says otherwise

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

On 02/02/2012 10:56 PM, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack of
> maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
> searching for a new maintainer. (The last being mask and
> treecleaning.)
>
> The problem with this is that it keeps them off the radar[1] and
> also formally prevents them from getting treatment from
> proxy-maintainers or sunrise projects.
>
> Is there anything that speaks against making metadata.xml tell the
> truth? At least the following packages are affected: [...]
>
>
> Best regards, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
> [1]
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/treecleaners/maintainer-needed.xml
>
>
Last rites in gentoo-dev-announce and gentoo-dev are better to draw
attention. Users who happen to have these packages installed, they
will see the message when they run emerge -uDN world and they will
hopefully step up and take over the package. Those you don't have it
installed will probably don't care so keeping it off the radar is
acceptable for them.

- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPKxp3AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCAs4P+gNxP945sbobxamzR/Bq9A9z
Vub/J9fLz1yTtCcwshonsAFVz/IeoQil7iCZNwaZ4ZdBwyudKWas+Mf0fN4pW8Au
vVnt6dwvZwYvnX2FxaUUQUjuyyUucyV7HnB/oFNsKO3XdUFJVDWF3rzMxP2ihsuC
ahvmFDEvV7ITLBG2SWKhbSxTdrXIURtT0VPkkspoGNq3THS6Vk ULpIQVQPt5VAll
m8+XXm7mdI5/EpUZm/NYNpCVzvNKsHLUrJdvMCI/aLfhOobbLpZY5U5yFGpF8yh3
NIfNiFHZE6bLH678lVISgClKRHSnlgf1+5DN3UM/XA5JaLvcw/pLMZgQhccbQCL8
Z6MIESH3NV6FJP3E0Fd3vaOY3r8CHIOHLW2oy63n6HeOeguhbI f81DmNEcSMmxpj
hReZCgO0dw9vurk+BqxMSGTYOmUic0DVDs+P1NI+R8uDFJrCPc 9BZE7uVj2ftw6I
9oE2i2kDjKhYMAOkw64mYKbSbNf2EvqtdYzMkbQRI3ZoNea+oC mu78b6/JwoPfDz
KlkAso+x9kPnHwyRH3qNasNfGDHfoBlmv8EmSbcxjCEq/osd23dRwL6PE0gFB8wo
RnOaIQ1si29JDDwlxVQ5hAEepGva+RxSFM+Qu0e7pHwXc3ENBd pZMFf1kppYJhtc
lnC0wI3cqx31S5QghfJg
=LqG5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 02-02-2012, 10:44 PM
Mike Frysinger
 
Default Packages masked for lack of maintainer, but metadata.xml says otherwise

On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack of
> maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
> searching for a new maintainer.

if there is no <herd> and no <maintainer>, then "maintainer-needed@g.o" is
implicit. why do we need to explicitly list it ?
-mike
 
Old 02-03-2012, 07:49 AM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default Packages masked for lack of maintainer, but metadata.xml says otherwise

On 02/03/2012 03:10 AM, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

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

Mike Frysinger schrieb:

On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:

there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
searching for a new maintainer.


if there is no<herd> and no<maintainer>, then
"maintainer-needed@g.o" is implicit. why do we need to explicitly
list it ? -mike


If that is the case, then removing would also be ok. But my point was
that the packages still had other maintainers listed.


In hylafax's case, the package has been broken since the addition of
tiff-4.0.0_beta5, which got added to tree "12 May 2010"


Both tiff and hylafax are with nerdboy as maintainer. At this point I've
looked at the commitrate of said maintainer


With version bump request open from year ago

Now that tiff-4 is going stable, the breakage enters stable tree.

In the lastrite mail, I've sent the mail also directly to the
maintainer, CCing him. I've never got any reply, and the bugs don't have
any comment from the marked maintainer


Personally I hope someone who can also test the runtime, would commit
hylafax+ instead of fixing hylafax to tree (bug 168890). Or both.


So it was really 2+2=4 which lead to this, all the things combined,
case-by-case review, and I'm not sure the situation can even be
reflected by the metadata.xml.
Except the maintainer could have removed himself from it, when he
realized he doesn't have enough time or intrest for it


Overall I think the lastrites had the desired effect of causing enough
buzz around it for other people to notice/get intrest to it
 
Old 02-03-2012, 08:31 AM
Alec Warner
 
Default Packages masked for lack of maintainer, but metadata.xml says otherwise

2012/2/2 Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@gentoo.org>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> On Thursday 02 February 2012 17:56:16 Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>> wrote:
>>> there have been a number of packages masked lately due to lack
>>> of maintainer. However, their metadata.xml does not list
>>> maintainer-needed@g.o which I think should be the first step in
>>> searching for a new maintainer.
>>
>> if there is no <herd> and no <maintainer>, then
>> "maintainer-needed@g.o" is implicit. *why do we need to explicitly
>> list it ? -mike
>
> If that is the case, then removing would also be ok. But my point was
> that the packages still had other maintainers listed.

I want to avoid setting rules in stone. We are not correctly tooled,
trained, or have any kind of vigor for that sort of approach.
Metadata.xml is a useful guide to knowing who might care (have cared?)
about a package. It is not 100% accurate despite the efforts of the
developer community. When buggy software is buggy for months (nay,
years?) it is treecleaner policy to mask it. Casting about for
maintainers is sometimes useful. You see the undertakers do this often
when retiring individuals. That being said, the quickest way to get a
response from the community is to mask it and wait for someone who
cares to step up, ergo the policy to mask packages we cannot find time
to fix.

For reference, the list of developers who are listed as active but
have not committed anything in gentoo-x86 'recently' is around 95. I
am set to eventually retire 33 of them (still getting some bugs out of
the scripts.)

The entire list is (active) + (inactive) or (162) + (95). Obviously
not everyone in the inactive list is really inactive (the limit afaik
is 30d) but the point is that even if the metadata.xml lists someone
there is a 1 in 3 chance that they may not be following closely
anyway. Developers on devaway are a similar issue
(https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338829)

-A

>
>
> Best regards,
> Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk8rNAsACgkQ+gvH2voEPRDbvACeKmIgmkscKm m4C4MbHMko90Bf
> 2+cAmwdjHK5IPzUF7ZDH4QvSSqRiZytE
> =rfFY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 AM.

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