On 01/23/2014 05:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
By going through those reports you will notice how long it took
for those patches to be applied as well as see all those that have
yet to be applied.
Yep but these are not unique to components with an inactive upstream.
All such enhancements take time to get through. Any changes in the
packages guidelines unless they break packages from building take a
significant amount of time to work through. I still see packages that
are just now adopting to using systemd macros for instance or
guidelines from years back and sometimes they are deliberately doing
so to maintain compatibility with older releases but in many cases, it
has just not been urgent enough to look into them until now. I have
been working on a package (quassel) where upstream is very active but
the Fedora package maintainer has been AWOL for a long time.
You have identified a problem but you are misattributing it.
No I'm not in-activity is still in-activity,,
In both these cases it falls on the hands of the packager/maintainer (
or none if he no longer is with us ).
Now
A)
You cannot help those packages to get more attention.
B)
Even if you did our current package maintenance framework does not allow
for drive by patching/helping
C)
Even if that was not the case as you correctly pointed out Fedora
suffers from general resource shortage.
all leading up to...
Cutting off inactively maintained packages being the only way we can
deal with that which in turn will reduce the size of the distribution to
something we actually can maintain or cover ( which probably is around
5k components )
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
