core ports maintainer confusion
Hi guys, core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right? tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] > (output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] >
(output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones. We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all, I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ... best regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
Juergen Daubert [2008-04-12 11:16]:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] >
(output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones.
This doesn't apply to all core ports though. eg core/libarchive still has my name in it because I originally had the port in my private repo, and when I moved it to core I forgot to update it.
We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all,
I suggest to put "core-ports" as the maintainer for the remaining core ports.
I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ...
Why? While we normally have a real human being listed as a port's maintainer, the core ports would then be the exception that proves the rule ;) Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Juergen Daubert [2008-04-12 11:16]:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] >
(output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones.
This doesn't apply to all core ports though. eg core/libarchive still has my name in it because I originally had the port in my private repo, and when I moved it to core I forgot to update it.
We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all,
I suggest to put "core-ports" as the maintainer for the remaining core ports.
basically I agree, but see my remarks below.
I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ...
Why? While we normally have a real human being listed as a port's maintainer, the core ports would then be the exception that proves the rule ;)
to avoid double work and to optimize quality. It happens often that I'm working on a port but you are 'faster' and has committed the changes already, I bet you've seen it the other way around. Strictly it's a good thing if two people are looking over the same work, but we should try to organize this a little bit better, even more if more than two dev's are involved. One possibility might be to commit to a devel-branch and merge the changes after some kind of signing by others. But that sounds like overkill to me. The other point is that we are more interested in one port than another. I'm subscribed to some mailing lists, for example gawk or coreutils, to track the upstream development, so it sounds natural to maintain those ports. Don't get me wrong, it's _not_ my idea to hijack some core ports. I'm quite fine with that core-ports maintainer, but we should try to optimize our limited resources. best regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Juergen Daubert [2008-04-12 11:16]:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] >
(output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones.
This doesn't apply to all core ports though. eg core/libarchive still has my name in it because I originally had the port in my private repo, and when I moved it to core I forgot to update it.
We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all,
I suggest to put "core-ports" as the maintainer for the remaining core ports.
basically I agree, but see my remarks below.
I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ...
Why? While we normally have a real human being listed as a port's maintainer, the core ports would then be the exception that proves the rule ;)
to avoid double work and to optimize quality.
It happens often that I'm working on a port but you are 'faster' and has committed the changes already, I bet you've seen it the other way around. Strictly it's a good thing if two people are looking over the same work, but we should try to organize this a little bit better, even more if more than two dev's are involved. One possibility might be to commit to a devel-branch and merge the changes after some kind of signing by others. But that sounds like overkill to me.
imho flyspray is the easiest way to organize a bit the actual situation. When more than one dev are involved, the faster one would be open a new port task and assign to a developer. I think that trunk/stable branches are fine for the port system but at this momment sounds like too work for core dev's. Best regards: Jose V Beneyto
Jose V Beneyto [2008-04-26 12:53]:
Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Juergen Daubert [2008-04-12 11:16]:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] > (output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones. This doesn't apply to all core ports though. eg core/libarchive still has my name in it because I originally had the port in my private repo, and when I moved it to core I forgot to update it.
We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all,
I suggest to put "core-ports" as the maintainer for the remaining core ports.
basically I agree, but see my remarks below.
I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ... Why? While we normally have a real human being listed as a port's maintainer, the core ports would then be the exception that proves the rule ;)
to avoid double work and to optimize quality. It happens often that I'm working on a port but you are 'faster' and has committed the changes already, I bet you've seen it the other way around. Strictly it's a good thing if two people are looking over the same work, but we should try to organize this a little bit better, even more if more than two dev's are involved. One possibility might be to commit to a devel-branch and merge the changes after some kind of signing by others. But that sounds like overkill to me.
imho flyspray is the easiest way to organize a bit the actual situation. When more than one dev are involved, the faster one would be open a new port task and assign to a developer. I think that trunk/stable branches are fine for the port system but at this momment sounds like too work for core dev's.
Both approaches sound like total overkill to me. I'd rather just send a quick mail to core-ports when I'm doing an upgrade :] Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:41:58PM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Jose V Beneyto [2008-04-26 12:53]:
Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:31PM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Juergen Daubert [2008-04-12 11:16]:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:39:15AM +0200, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
Hi guys,
Hello,
core ports aren't supposed to have specific maintainers, right?
tilman@brimstone [] > grep Maintainer */Pkgfile|grep -v core-ports bzip2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck exim/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Juergen Daubert iproute2/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Simone Rota libarchive/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck libusb/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pciutils/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Jürgen Daubert pkg-config/Pkgfile:# Maintainer: Tilman Sauerbeck tilman@brimstone [/usr/ports/core] > (output truncated). These should be fixed, right? :o
not really sure about that. As Per retired we decided, as a quick solution, to introduce the core-ports maintainer. The above ports are moved from opt to core for some reasons, so the maintainers are the original ones. This doesn't apply to all core ports though. eg core/libarchive still has my name in it because I originally had the port in my private repo, and when I moved it to core I forgot to update it.
We never discussed in deep how to handle the core ports at all,
I suggest to put "core-ports" as the maintainer for the remaining core ports.
basically I agree, but see my remarks below.
I think that we are talking about the organisation and structure of whole project at this point ... Why? While we normally have a real human being listed as a port's maintainer, the core ports would then be the exception that proves the rule ;)
to avoid double work and to optimize quality. It happens often that I'm working on a port but you are 'faster' and has committed the changes already, I bet you've seen it the other way around. Strictly it's a good thing if two people are looking over the same work, but we should try to organize this a little bit better, even more if more than two dev's are involved. One possibility might be to commit to a devel-branch and merge the changes after some kind of signing by others. But that sounds like overkill to me.
imho flyspray is the easiest way to organize a bit the actual situation. When more than one dev are involved, the faster one would be open a new port task and assign to a developer. I think that trunk/stable branches are fine for the port system but at this momment sounds like too work for core dev's.
Both approaches sound like total overkill to me. I'd rather just send a quick mail to core-ports when I'm doing an upgrade :]
Ok, sounds that we are not able to find a better solution for now, so I'd like to follow your suggestion. regards Juergen -- Juergen Daubert | mailto:jue@jue.li Korb, Germany | http://jue.li/crux
participants (3)
-
Jose V Beneyto -
Juergen Daubert -
Tilman Sauerbeck