Re: Package Maintenance

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 24-03-09 19:55, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks
> <fransmeulenbroeks@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Disadvantage of a Maintainers file is that it is yet another file to
>> update when you create a package (adjacent to the checksums file and
>> of course the package recipe). Guess it will be forgotten regularly.
>>
>> Also I fear we're going to end up with a lot of orphaned packages.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that we have a lot of orphaned
> packages today, we just aren't being honest about it.  90% of the
> recipes in the tree don't get the attention they should.

I suspect we have approx 100 properly maintained recipes, which is 
approx 1.5%. The rest is 'unmaintained' due to dormant upstream, or 
because it builds and works just well enough for people to ignore it.
Also, having people put their name down as maintainer doesn't help when 
they have no interest in QA at all.

What about recording when a recipe has been 'vetted' and the results of 
the 'vetting':

# foo_1.0.bb vetting record:
# 2008/10/31  -  koen@openembedded.org
# 	beagleboard/angstrom-2008.1
#		fails to build with gcc >= 4.3.0
#	tosa/angstrom-2008.1
#		works
# 2006/5/16 - hrw@openembedded.org
#	tosa/openzaurus-3.5.3
#		works

thoughts?

regards,

Koen