On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 9:49 PM Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com> wrote: ... > > FTBFS issues are, admittedly, complicated, but > such updates SHOULD be via a PR. If a PP wants > to claim they cannot follow that process, they need > to demonstrate that a particular packager is not > responsive (there is a process for that) rather > then just deciding themselves it is too much trouble.
While I generally agree that a merge request is a more polite and elegant solution, if a package is listed as FTBFS (having had a bug automatically opened) and some reasonable amount of time (two, three weeks?) has passed, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the maintainer is vacant (either entirely or because they lack the available time to deal with it at this point). In that case, I don't see it as a problem to jump in and fix the package as a provenpackager if the fix is relatively minor (yes, this is subjective). I'd hesitate at rebasing to a new version, but if the issue is that a dependency changed its name or the newest gcc made a warning into an error, I think that's a perfectly acceptable fix to make. The ideal case is for it to go through a merge request, but if the package happens to be blocking other work, I think expediency is completely warranted. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
