Contents of /xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0003.txt

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log

Revision 1.1 - (hide annotations) (download)
Tue Jun 10 17:31:01 2003 UTC (15 years, 4 months ago) by g2boojum
Branch: MAIN
File MIME type: text/plain
New glep.

1 g2boojum 1.1 GLEP: 3
2     Title: Ebuild maintainter extension GLEP
3     Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
4     Last-Modified: $Date: 2003/06/02 17:37:47 $
5     Author: Caleb Tennis <caleb@gentoo.org>
6     Status: Draft
7     Type: Standards Track
8     Content-Type: text/x-rst
9     Created: 09-Jun-2003
10     Post-History: 10-Jun-2003
13     Abstract
14     ========
16     Gentoo's portage tree attempts to provide a self contained, easy to use, and
17     automatic installation procedure for as many packages as can be maintained by
18     developers.
20     This GLEP proposes allowing non-core Gentoo developers to be considered as
21     ebuild maintainers sponsored via a core Gentoo developer. This system will
22     allow more ebuilds to be available in portage with active maintainers for
23     those ebuilds.
25     This GLEP only applies to EBUILD based bugs that contain a request for a
26     package to be committed or version bumped within portage.
28     Motivation
29     ==========
31     As of the first draft of this GLEP, there are 1387 EBUILD bug requests in
32     Gentoo's bugzilla database. Many of these requests contain ebuilds that
33     have been submitted by the bug reporter and are simply awaiting a Gentoo
34     developer to sponsor the submittal of the ebuild.
38     Rationale
39     =========
41     Gentoo's portage tree already contains the most popular ebuilds for packages
42     available today. Many teams exist that are responsible for maintaining these
43     core ebuilds in the portage tree. But, for ebuilds that are not as commonly
44     used, there is no good focal point upon which to rest these ebuilds.
46     For example, any submitted ebuild that is a KDE application gets routed to the
47     KDE team. However, the KDE team may be unfamiliar with the submitted ebuild.
48     A new graphical MySQL editor may be submitted to the MYSQL team, but none of
49     the members of that team may be familiar or have the desire to learn a new
50     program to submit it to portage.
52     We want to be able to provide for as many ebuilds in portage as feasible and
53     make sure that all ebuilds have some person who is responsible for
54     maintenance.
57     Backwards Compatibility
58     =======================
60     No current policies exist that interfere with this document.
63     Implementation
64     ==============
66     Incoming ebuild bug reports should continue to be processed as normal.
68     Bug reports that *do not* contain an attached ebuild should be marked as
69     NEEDINFO. A message asking the user to create and submit an ebuild should be
70     attached to the bug.
72     Bug reports that *do* have an attached ebuild should be responded to with
73     a message asking if the reporter agrees to provide maintence and support for
74     the ebuild and package.
76     If a reporter *does not* agree to provide package maintence, the bug report
77     should be marked WONTFIX.
79     If a reporter *does* agree to provide package support, the ebuild should
80     be added to portage with a note in the ChangeLog that the reporter is
81     considered the maintainer of that particular ebuild.
83     Any incoming bug reports that are related to this ebuild should continue to
84     get processed as normal. The team that the ebuild goes to should then CC the
85     author of the ebuild. Optionally, if a docs-team member has prior knowledge
86     that the ebuild is externally maintained, he/she can add that person to the CC
87     list.
89     Security
90     ========
92     **At the very least**, all ebuilds must be looked over by the developer
93     handling the commit.
95     In no case should a submitted digest file be used. The developer is
96     responsible for creating the digest file based on an actual download of the
97     source code.
99     Potential breaches in security can still exist, however. The developer
100     handling the installation should take every step to ensure that no ebuild,
101     package, or other files have been compromised.
104     Future
105     ======
107     Current proposals to rethink Gentoo portage and bug handling (a.k.a Herds) are
108     still in negotiation. It is the intention of the author of this GLEP to evolve
109     the concept of this GLEP as the Herds concept matures and stabilizes.
112     References
113     ==========
115     .. [#GLEP2] GLEP 2, Sample ReStructuredText GLEP Template, Goodyear,
116     (http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0002.html)
119     Copyright
120     =========
122     This document has been placed in the public domain.

  ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.20