Hi Kevin, On 6/15/06, Kevin F. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I read the "should" as implying that all new packages must have it, and packages existing before the introduction of metadata should get it as and when maintainer gets around to it (i.e. at least on the next bump).
Chris's argument was that this doc _requires_ packages to belong to herds (specifically, that all packages that are games automatically belong to the games herd). The document clearly doesn't support his argument.
So you'd better have a good excuse for violating the rule if you do so. Anyone adding a herd tag to meet the "shall", then putting garbage in it that isn't the name of a defined herd for no good reason, deserves to be spanked.
?? Where has that come from? Has there been a spate of people doing this?
However common sense suggests that anyone adding games to the tree should join the games team and add the game to the games herd (which obviously means playing by the rules of the team) - not least to provide consistency; but also to be in the loop for overall games issues and to provide the most sensible backup maintainers.
As you say yourself, it's suggested, not mandatory - and it doesn't have to be a specific herd.
In other words, you need to have a very good reason for avoiding the games team and herd when adding a game to the tree.
That's your personal opinion, which I respect, and I understand how you've come to that conclusion. But it doesn't change the fact that, if folks choose to maintain a game without joining the games herd, they're prefectly entitled to do so. And the same is true for webapps, or anything else. You simply can't go around clubbing people over the head and saying "that's a <project> project ebuild, join our team or it doesn't go into the tree", which is where this is leading. What we _don't_ want are folks adding a package to a tree and dumping it on a herd without their permission. That always has been a big 'no no' in Gentoo. Best regards, Stu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
