Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml
On 25/11/06, Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:59:32 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrej Kacian napsal(a): > > Why? If someone does this, they need to be spanked > > Meh, even you got it right on the first try - no need to name > anyone *g* Well, in secret everybody knows that the "no-herd" herd has existed for ages and has two very active members... 'no' and 'herd'. *nod* --beu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:59:32 +0100 Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrej Kacian napsal(a): > > Why? If someone does this, they need to be spanked > > Meh, even you got it right on the first try - no need to name > anyone *g* Well, in secret everybody knows that the "no-herd" herd has existed for ages and has two very active members... Kind regards, JeR -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] treecleaner maskings
Alexis Ballier wrote: > >> #94902 - media-video/winki >> o requested by Alec Warner on behalf of treecleaner >> o nothing depends on it >> o Pending Removal Dec 04th 2006 >> > > I've bumped this one to version 0.4.1. As it's a python frontend > to various encoders, I'd like to keep it. > I've left it masked, I'll remove the mask during next week if nobody > complains. > The only reason I found to remove this one is the lack of maintainer, > so, I'm your man ! (through video herd, no need to be listed as the > only maintainer for small packages that shouldn't be time consuming > nor difficult to maintain) > > Alexis. > > > Ps: Sorry if this mail reaches the ml twice, I firstly sent it with a > wrong from:, I hope the first mail will never reach this list. > > could you upload your key to pgp.mit.edu please? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] treecleaner maskings
> #94902 - media-video/winki > o requested by Alec Warner on behalf of treecleaner > o nothing depends on it > o Pending Removal Dec 04th 2006 I've bumped this one to version 0.4.1. As it's a python frontend to various encoders, I'd like to keep it. I've left it masked, I'll remove the mask during next week if nobody complains. The only reason I found to remove this one is the lack of maintainer, so, I'm your man ! (through video herd, no need to be listed as the only maintainer for small packages that shouldn't be time consuming nor difficult to maintain) Alexis. Ps: Sorry if this mail reaches the ml twice, I firstly sent it with a wrong from:, I hope the first mail will never reach this list. pgpoIwfami870.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Announcement: New(ish) eclass pax-utils.eclass
Hi peeps. I added an eclass (a utility class, rather than a "real" eclass) to abstract PaX flag management from ebuilds into a central place where we (hardened project) can maintain the use of the tools which manipulate the PaX flags. These tools are still evolving, and we need to continue to support them as they do so. Abstracting their use into a simple interface allows us to do so without having to hack around in ebuilds all around the place. Although I committed it originally almost a year ago, it hasn't been used yet, so if there's anything fundamentally wrong with whole thing, now is the time say as it can be removed with impunity. I did consider adding the functions to eutils.eclass, but I prefer to have it separate. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Removing dev-perl/RPM
Masked since 23 Oct 2006, removed. -- -o()o-- Michael Cummings |#gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev|on irc.freenode.net Gentoo/SPARC Gentoo/AMD64 GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7 8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E -o()o-- Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature. pgp4HzXaZeqix.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml
Andrej Kacian napsal(a): > Dňa Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:20:16 +0100 > Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napísal: > >> Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on >> adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone, >> I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P). > > Why? If someone does this, they need to be spanked Meh, even you got it right on the first try - no need to name anyone *g* -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] missing metadata.xml
On Thursday 23 November 2006 11:20, Jakub Moc wrote: > Bryan Østergaard napsal(a): > > I think the most important thing about adding "empty" metadata.xml files > > with maintainer-needed as maintainer is that it _changes_ the package to > > be unmaintained by definition (that's what maintainer-needed means after > > all) and that we can't be sure that's actually true unless we spend a > > lot of time examining each package and asking potential maintainers > > if it's unmaintained. > > Actually, I don't mind much. There's a developers or two who keep on > adding packages without metadata.xml all the time (won't name anyone, > I'm pretty sure they'll find themselves here :P). This will either force > them to reclaim their packages via fixing the metadata.xml thing or will > leave the ebuilds orphaned to m-needed - and then they shouldn't have > been added in the first place. > > Above, I'm not talking about legacy stuff maintained in an ad-hoc manner > for ages, but about fairly recent additions to the tree (~1 year or even > less). However, even for legacy stuff, nothing is preventing the people > from claiming their ebuilds the right way and adding themselves to > metadata.xml - will make assigning bugs much easier for me. ;) Repoman should check for missing metadata. The only packages that are allowed not to have metadata.xml would be those that have not been changed for over 3 years (since the introduction of metadata.xml). Developers who violate the repoman checks by omitting a metadata.xml brought mayhem over themselves. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp3YMOUSQ20U.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: missing metadata.xml
Tach Donnie, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID) Donnie Berkholz schrieb: > Christian Faulhammer wrote: >> Steve Dibb schrieb: >>> There are more than a few packages with missing metadata.xml in the >>> portage tree. I've setup my funky little QA website to report on >>> which ones fall in that category, and here is the list right here: >> Nice idea, but you should really add no-herd as this is >> required if there is only a "maintainer". > Really? isn't valid? I'd rather see that than adding a "fake" > herd. I though I read about it being mandatory with "no-herd"...yes Alec Warner wrote that (implicitly). But I am not really sure. At least, herd tag is mandatory, in whatever way. V-Li -- Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3 http://www.gnupg.org/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: missing metadata.xml
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 11:14 +0100, Christian Faulhammer wrote: > I suggest the following changes: > > app-misc/baobab vapier and/or Gnome (as this is part of Gnome > 2.16) Not gnome. baobab is part of gnome-utils as of 2.16, and gets installed from gnome-extra/gnome-utils which, I realize now, is begging for a app-misc/baobab blocker to avoid collisions *adds to his growing TODO list* Earlier I put app-admin/sabayon under gnome, which seemed to have been forgotten when moving over to portage from gnome-experimental overlay. I intend to personally take over maintenance of dev-util/sysprof and dev-util/memprof later on if no-one else is willing. /me pokes dev-tools herd for co-maintenance -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
