Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 01/23/2016 12:52 AM, Ian Delaney wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:30:14 -0800 Daniel Campbell > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 > >> On 01/21/2016 02:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: >>> On Thu,

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:12:57 +0100 Patrice Clement wrote: > Tuesday 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49, NP-Hardass wrote : > > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, > > I started to wonder what will happen

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Summarizing some (not all) points from Ian's mail: The proxy-maintainers project is nowadays very active on the channel #gentoo- proxy-maint. Several new and very promising contributors are showing up there, and generating a flurry of

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Ian Delaney: > > 5. At the risk of sounding like Patrick, gentoo lacks some forms > of documentation pertaining to established proxy maintainers and to > forms of stats analysis. In discussions, points were raised > regarding the gathering of stats

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:30:14 -0800 Daniel Campbell wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 01/21/2016 02:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:45:20PM +0100, Micha?? Górny

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

Tuesday 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49, NP-Hardass wrote : > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was > wondering what the community thinks

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Patrice Clement wrote: > > , I quite like your idea but what about > first? I don't see any strict dependency on these two ideas. By all means both of you should feel free to get them implemented. If we only implemented ideas when all

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 19:51:51 -0500 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 01/21/2016 05:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > > Maybe we should start a "gentoo-ebuilds" mailing list to help > > regular users learn the ins and outs of making ebuilds. > > Try

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 07:51:51PM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote > On 01/21/2016 05:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > > > Maybe we should start a "gentoo-ebuilds" mailing list to help regular > > users learn the ins and outs of making ebuilds. > > Try gentoo-devhelp@lists.g.o, or the

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On 22 Jan 2016 12:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:45:20 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > > If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply > > doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you forcing > > me to waste a time reporting a bug to no

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On 2016.01.21 17:45, Michał Górny wrote: [snip] > > If I see a package that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply > doesn't work, could not have worked for past 3 years, are you forcing > me to waste a time reporting a bug to no maintainer who could fix it? > [snip] > -- > Best regards, >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On 2016.01.21 16:53, William Hubbs wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass > wrote: > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > > > With all of the unclaimed herds and

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On 01/21/2016 06:15 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:53:58 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> I would like to see a possible timelimit set on how long packages can >> stay in maintainer-needed; once a package goes there, if we can't find >> someone to

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:53:58 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > I would like to see a possible timelimit set on how long packages can > stay in maintainer-needed; once a package goes there, if we can't find > someone to maintain it, we should consider booting it after that time >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:25:21 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 01/21/2016 06:15 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:53:58 -0600 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > >> I would like to see a possible timelimit set on how long packages >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I > > started to wonder

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 01/21/2016 06:30 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:25:21 +0100 Kristian Fiskerstrand > wrote: > >> However it can cause complications when issues are detected, in >> particular security relevant ones.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:25:02 + Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2016.01.21 16:53, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:35:15AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass > > wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:45:20PM +0100, Micha?? Górny wrote > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:25:02 + > Roy Bamford wrote: > > > There is no point in removing unmaintained but perfectly functional > > software from the tree. It needs to be both unmaintained and broken. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 5:41 PM, wrote: > I think you misunderstood Roy. He was speaking about "unmaintained > but perfectly functional software". You're talking about "a package > that clearly doesn't build or otherwise simply doesn't work, could not > have worked for

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 01/21/2016 02:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:45:20PM +0100, Micha?? Górny wrote >> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:25:02 + Roy Bamford >> wrote: >> >>> There is no point in removing

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On 01/21/2016 05:41 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > > Maybe we should start a "gentoo-ebuilds" mailing list to help regular > users learn the ins and outs of making ebuilds. Try gentoo-devhelp@lists.g.o, or the associated #gentoo-dev-help on IRC. We should be trying to get these things

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 01/18/2016 09:44 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, > I started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49 -0500 NP-Hardass wrote: > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 00:44:49 -0500 NP-Hardass wrote: > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was >

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:32:30 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > The problem was, is and will be that packages are unmaintained. Not > that stats show that they are many. No it's not. Gentoo is about the community, and it's important for the community not to perceive that there is a

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

I'm not claiming that this is a new problem or that it will be orders of magnitude worse. Merely that it brings the issue back into the forefront and that we could benefit from official policies and (in some cases renewed) efforts to reduce their impact. An official policy/action is not likely

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I > started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition > finally comes to fruition.

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

Hopefully some comments from a user / power-user are welcome on this topic. Just my two cents, is all. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:44 PM, NP-Hardass wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:32:30 +0100 > Michał Górny wrote: >> The problem was, is and will be that packages are unmaintained. Not >> that stats show that they are many. > > No it's not.

[gentoo-dev] [RFD] Adopt-a-package, proxy-maintenance, and other musings

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 With all of the unclaimed herds and unclaimed packages within them, I started to wonder what will happen after the GLEP 67 transition finally comes to fruition. This left me with some concerns and I was wondering what the community thinks about