On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:03:34PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote: > > > Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a): > > > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans > > > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons > > > for not upgrading the package. Just ask! > > > > The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a > > package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in > > my thinking. > > The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had > 8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will > happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the > same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available > to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is > possible in the Fedora package collection?
Afaik there is no good procedure available for these kind of issues. The worst case is that the package is not fixed, the best case is that there is one dedicated maintainer that starts to care about the package and the described actions are in-between. But it seems not to worry anyone enough to do something about it, e.g. like implementing a package monkey group that maintains together a lot of packages none of the members would like to maintain alone without all the bureaucracy of acking changes to the package by the bad-responsive package maintainer or a package watch list might be another idea to watch these kind of packages. Regards Till
pgpJvaUR1J8hT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
