The following "sci" herd ebuilds sci: /usr/portage/dev-python/pygsl/pygsl-0.9.5.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-libs/libctl/libctl-3.1.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-libs/nlopt/nlopt-2.2.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-visualization/extrema/extrema-4.4.3.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-visualization/fityk/fityk-0.9.3.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-visualization/g3data/g3data-1.5.3.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-visualization/ggobi/ggobi-2.1.8.ebuild sci: /usr/portage/sci-libs/xylib/xylib-0.6.ebuild build OK on alpha, request "~alpha" keyword.
extrema and g3data have different maintainers. Please open separate bugs for them. BTW do you really require these keywords for anything or are you just spamming arch teams with random packages?
Hi, (In reply to comment #1) > extrema and g3data have different maintainers. Please open separate bugs for > them. OK, later I'll commit other two bugs. I was once said that the reports should be grouped accroding to herds... Do we really need to group bugs according to their maintainers? I prefer grouping accroding to herds; I think there're too many maintainers to group reports... What is the correct/practical way? > BTW do you really require these keywords for anything or are you just spamming > arch teams with random packages? What do you mean by "spamming arch teams"? I really don't understand... There're two in my mind. First, I'm relatively new to Gentoo especially Gentoo/alpha and here I see many ebuilds which may be of use to me, and I want to try to use them. But many of them are not tested on alpha (missing ~alpha). Therefore when I find ebuilds which seems useful to me I build them and if cussessful I report so. At least I'm happy if they have the keyword. Second, I think that reporting my successful builds is of some help to users as well as the maintainers of Gentoo/alpha somehow. Kazuyoshi
> What is the correct/practical way? http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/bug-wranglers/index.xml "When metadata.xml lists a single maintainer or herd, then you assign the bug to that maintainer or herd. When the file lists multiple entries, then you assign the bug to the first maintainer, and CC the other maintainer(s) and herd(s)." > What do you mean by "spamming arch teams"? I really don't understand... You are creating more work for arch teams, some of which are already spread too thin over too many packages - which is fine if you are using the packages by the way. Closing. Please open seperate bugs.
(In reply to comment #2) > What do you mean by "spamming arch teams"? I really don't understand... The fact is that arch teams have to retest every ebuild you point out. And testing mean not only building them but also checking if the installed applications seem to work at all. > First, I'm relatively new to Gentoo especially Gentoo/alpha and here I see many > ebuilds which may be of use to me, and I want to try to use them. But many of > them are not tested on alpha (missing ~alpha). You are free to unmask and test them yourself. But please do not force our arch teams to retest all of them. Choose those which you'll use and thoroughly test first.
