Mark Loeser wrote:
> Tiziano Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> Current state: "Deferred"
>> Wanted state: "Accepted/Implemented" (at least by me)
>
> Yea, this sounds like a good thing from reading over the GLEP, unless
> I'm missing some glaring problems with it.
>
>> Open questions from last discussion (March 2006):
>> - Is it possible/should it be possible to have more than one <maintainer>
>> entry?
>
> Yea, agree.
>
>> - Is recording an upstream-status (active/inactive) a good idea?
>> Possibilities:
>> An element: <status>{active/inactive}</status>
>> An attribute: <maintainer status="{active/inactive}">...
>
> Definately. We have several packages in the tree that once they become
> broken, we'd have to start developing ourselves. This will help the
> treecleaner project as well so they can tell if a package has several
> open bugs and upstream is inactive, its a very good candidate for
> getting booted from the tree.
>
>> - Is an additional <doc> element needed to link to upstream docs
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
>> - Must the type of <remote-id> be controlled/listed/checked?
>
> I'd say we should come up with a good list to start with. We can come
> up with updates to the allowed values at a later date, but I do think we
> should keep this under control.
Ok, agreed.
Where should we keep that list?
Something like "gentoo-x86/metadata/dtd/upstream-tags.dtd" ?
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
