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