"Eddie Chapman" <ed...@ehuk.net> writes:
> Sam James wrote: >> >> "Eddie Chapman" <ed...@ehuk.net> writes: >>>>> So what's the situation with the current Gentoo maintainers? Have >>>>> they disappeared? I often see on here packages being offered up for >>>>> grabs. Why >>>>> hasn't there been a call to give others the opportunity to volunteer >>>>> as maintainers rather than going straight to last riting the package? >>>>> Or >>>>> has that happened and I've missed it, in which case I apologise. >>>> >>>> There was a year ago or so and nothing really came out of it. But see >>>> above wrt 'tags'. >>> >>> A year is a long time, there might well now be people willing to take >>> over maintaining it that were not willing to 1 year ago, if that is what >>> is required. >> >> They have a month to step up anyway, although that will involve >> upstream activity too. > > I see there was already a change in the tree yesterday that assumes > sys-fs/eudev is going (commit d46677fd864b30315423c8364ca44db2de98e2a1, > sys-fs/mdadm/mdadm-4.2-r2, amd64 stable keyworded). Has this actually been > decided behind the scenes already? This starts to smell a little ugly > unless I've completely misunderstood something. I hope I'm wrong. I think someone just didn't want to bother waiting to clean it up there given it's unlikely anyone will bother taking it over. It's not exactly something which can't be undone. > > One thing I don't understand: the Gentoo project page for eudev lists 4 > members including the lead, and FWICT they are mostly still active in > other areas of Gentoo (recent commits to the tree in other packages). The > project lead is also an original author of eudev. blueness being the same person who wrote the news item last year saying it's dead and it no longer serves a purpose. > I find it hard to > believe that all 4 of these people have completely lost interest in eudev > in Gentoo. Have any of these 4 maintainers publicly said (anywhere) that > they are not interested in being maintainers anymore (which is fine if > that is the case)? We're not talking here about a lone maintainer of some > peripheral package that's disappeared leaving an orphaned package. > That happened really with the discussion w/ blueness et. al when it was last-rited (or before it was last-rited) originally.
