From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LmC6p-0006fZ-Uy for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:16:24 +0100 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LmC5O-0007Ji-KP for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:14:54 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:14:54 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:14:54 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:14:43 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1237885606.5348.8.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1b4pre) Gecko/20090316 Shredder/3.0b3pre In-Reply-To: Sender: news Subject: Re: Package Maintenance X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:16:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 24-03-09 19:55, Chris Larson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Frans Meulenbroeks > 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