On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 11:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Nevertheless, what is the recommended procedure to claim the other
> branches? Is it a ticket to FESCo trac or a CVS Admin procedure
> request?
Honestly that's a good question. I'd start with a FESCo ticket and see
what happens?
--
Jesse Ke
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:56:30AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It was easier to just do devel, and that's the only place a package
> would be blocked if these don't get owners. For the packages that do
> get owners, we can free up whichever branches the new maintainer wishes,
> which may not be
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:39:38AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:43:40 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:12 +0100
> > > Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > > The list of packages you announce
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:43:40 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:12 +0100
> > Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > The list of packages you announced that are going to be orphaned
> > > and the list of packages that were orph
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 15:46 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> > > since the Fedora 11 time frame, and c
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:17PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:48:25 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
> > > Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Indeed. I don't see much activi
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> > since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
> > are the oldest non-buil
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:12 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > The list of packages you announced that are going to be orphaned and
> > the list of packages that were orphaned are not the same.
> > recordmydesktop was on the to-be-orphan
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Jens Petersen wrote:
> - "Seth Vidal" wrote:
>> which is why All we're suggesting is filing a bug and/or some other
>> kind of notification that says "are you alive".
>
> To clarify, only for FTBFS, right?
>
There's a lot more details involved. When I have the full spe
- "Seth Vidal" wrote:
> which is why All we're suggesting is filing a bug and/or some other
> kind of notification that says "are you alive".
To clarify, only for FTBFS, right?
Jens
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:12 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> The list of packages you announced that are going to be orphaned and
> the list of packages that were orphaned are not the same.
> recordmydesktop was on the to-be-orphaned list but afaics was not
> orphaned and also was not mentioned in your
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:48:25 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
> > Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > > Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
> > > > Have you tried sending them an email?
> > > > If not,
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2010/1/18 Seth Vidal :
>> 1. extraordinarily stable
>> [...]
>> in ANY of those cases I'd want to start thinking about nuking the pkg from
>> fedora.
>
> Are you serious?
>
As a heart attack.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
2010/1/18 Seth Vidal :
> 1. extraordinarily stable
> [...]
> in ANY of those cases I'd want to start thinking about nuking the pkg from
> fedora.
Are you serious?
- Thomas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> After some talk on IRC yesterday, skvidal is the person doing work on this
> at them moment. His plan is to implement tests that try to tell if
> individual packages are maintained and get people to orphan those that are
> not. Here's his general pl
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:27:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > > unmaintained, because if it is maintain
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:25 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> If we do that check before the alpha release that should let us track
>> down
>> awol maintainers and unmaintained pkgs pretty easily, I think.
>>
>> thoughts?
>
> There's trivial packages whi
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually
> uses
> > it, otherwise he would just drop it.
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:25 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> If we do that check before the alpha release that should let us track
> down
> awol maintainers and unmaintained pkgs pretty easily, I think.
>
> thoughts?
There's trivial packages which simply don't really need touching. I just
updated con
On Monday 18 January 2010 03:39:47 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 16:22 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > I've not heard any other solutions which aren't "oh just let it be."
>
> It might have been missed in the passing but:
>
> We have to reset our bugzilla password frequently
> We
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 22:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:01:23 +0100, Tomas wrote:
>
> > I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
> > fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
> > touched by the maintainer during rece
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:01:23 +0100, Tomas wrote:
> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
> fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
> touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is
> opened not closed in the bugzil
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:39 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It might have been missed in the passing but:
>
> We have to reset our bugzilla password frequently
> We have to renew our Koji cert once a year
>
> We should be able to detect when either of those goes wrong, probably
> easiest to do the
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:08 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
> > > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > > unmaintained, because if it is maintain
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 16:22 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> I've not heard any other solutions which aren't "oh just let it be."
It might have been missed in the passing but:
We have to reset our bugzilla password frequently
We have to renew our Koji cert once a year
We should be able to detect when
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:55:36PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> Yes, I believe the expression you're looking for is:
>>
>> "Perfect is the enemy of the good"
>>
>> What is being suggested is not perfect. It is, however, good.
>
> Here we disagree. As I ex
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>> Often maintainers don't realize they have some of these packages, or the
>> maintainers have left the project.
>
> Do maintainer really "often" forget, that they own a certain package?
> Ok, maybe if they are forced to do this from Red Hat, I do not know.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
> > it, otherwise he would just drop
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:55:36PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Yes, I believe the expression you're looking for is:
>
> "Perfect is the enemy of the good"
>
> What is being suggested is not perfect. It is, however, good.
Here we disagree. As I explained I see little use in it, since there are
ot
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
> > it, otherwise he would just drop
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
> > it, otherwise he would just drop it. I
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
> it, otherwise he would just drop it. If upstream is dead but the
> maintainer fixes bugs, when they are f
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> First of all, that would be two bug reports per year, as we have a 6
> month development cycle. But it also will not be that useful, as we
> already have three things that have to be done by every maintainer once
> or twice a year, so they can be easily us
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:24 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> So that means that for example for the openoffice.org-dict-cs_CZ package
> I'll get the nag bug report before each and every Fedora release?
>
> It is definitely not 4. however 1. and 2. apply to it. As this is just a
> czech spelling and hyph
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:32:10PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> I have another radical idea - we could whitelist all sorts of things which
> are unchanging and yet used. We could act like reasonable folks and
> realize that one extra bug report A YEAR that you have to close as 'fixed'
> is really
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:04:14PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> I disagree about the bug being open. A lack of filed bugs could mean that
> no one CARES about the pkg at all. And if we have pkgs which are not being
> maintained AND no one cares enough to file a bug about then either they
> are:
>
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 14:04 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>
>>> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
>>> fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
>>> touch
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 14:04 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> > I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
> > fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
> > touched by the maintainer during recent x months
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
> fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
> touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is
> opened not closed in the bugzilla on th
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:25 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
> > common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
> > for packages that appear via some criteria (ha
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
>>> common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do th
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
> > common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
> > for packages that appear via some cri
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
> common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
> for packages that appear via some criteria (have not been built, have
> not been committed to, have lots of bug
Matt Domsch (matt_dom...@dell.com) said:
> > With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
> > reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
> > worse if it turns out that packages which do build are unmaintained
> > nevertheless, with the same symptoms in bug
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:46:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> > We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say
> > "MAINTAINED". An automated process would generate such tickets,
> > blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintain
On 01/16/2010 03:50 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
>> reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
>> worse if it turns out that packages which do bui
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
> We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say
> "MAINTAINED". An automated process would generate such tickets,
> blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintainer to close
> the ticket to remain the owner of the package. Ticket
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
>> perl-SVN-Simple iburrell
>
> There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
> submitted in the upstream bugtracker iirc 7 days ago. But I also noticed
> that
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > > The following 30 packages, with respe
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
> > > Have you tried sending them an email?
> > > If not, I can.
> >
> > No, please go ahead.
>
> I took the liberty right
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:10:17PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:47:35AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Bad idea (says someone who owns 150 packages). I don't feel like
> > getting 150 bugzilla mails and having to (mass) close them each
> > release.
>
> OK; add a fedora-p
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:47:35AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Bad idea (says someone who owns 150 packages). I don't feel like
> getting 150 bugzilla mails and having to (mass) close them each
> release.
OK; add a fedora-packager script that mass-closes bugs; or use the
bugzilla web interface t
Hi,
On 01/16/2010 03:50 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for people,
>> not for packages. The people may still be active (and even known to be
>> active somewhere) and not AWOL
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 10:59 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> You know we have a procedure for this it is called the awol maintainer
> procedure and it would be nice if FESco would follow its on procedures
> here.
>
> Ah well I guess the rules don't apply to those who make them :(
>
>
The non-respo
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 11:08 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Simply blocking the ones which FTBFS bugs were not
> fixed from F-13 inclusion would have been the appropriate response
> (as documented in our procedures), not
> some adhoc almost random response.
We are blocking them. Every release we r
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:13:32 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for
> people, not for packages. The people may still be active (and even
> known to be active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which
> are assigned to them would stil
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:08:30 +0100
Hans de Goede wrote:
> I don't see who the orphaning without following proper procedure is
> appropriate at all. Simply blocking the ones which FTBFS bugs were not
> fixed from F-13 inclusion would have been the appropriate response
> (as documented in our proce
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> > Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
> > Have you tried sending them an email?
> > If not, I can.
>
> No, please go ahead.
I took the liberty right after I posted.
(Hopefully Ian doesn't mind me passing this along:)
Ian Burre
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:12:03AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
> >> widelands-0-0.13.Build13.fc11.src.rpm
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511430
> >> xpilot-ng-4.7.2-16.fc11.src.rpm
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511717
>
> Ah, how nice, these 2 are orphaned
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:39:17PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:13:29AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this has proven to be hard/impossible so far.
> >
> > >> perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm
> > >>
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 08:50:14AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
> > reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
> > worse if it turns out that
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:13:29AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
>
> I intended to take this one, but the packagedb doesn't offer me an
> option to take it:
>
> C.f.:
> https://admin.fedoraproje
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > unifdef-1.171-8.fc11.src.rpm
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511553
i fixed this, but i think we should still remove it because it has been
superceded by the superior sunifdef.
regards, kyle
--
devel mailing list
d
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for people,
> not for packages. The people may still be active (and even known to be
> active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which are assigned to
> them would
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:59:56 +0100, Hans wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 09:01 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > What about the other packages of these maintainers? E.g. in the
> > recordmydesktop case, there were four bugs open with working patches
> > attached for that package. I did not yet check the other p
Hi,
On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
>> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
>> are the oldest non-building packages in
Hi,
On 01/16/2010 12:14 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not fail
>> to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that fail to
>> build?
>>
>
> Because this isn't a fully pr
Hi,
On 01/15/2010 09:06 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, h
Hi,
On 01/15/2010 09:01 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>>> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
>>> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:13:29 +0100, Ralf wrote:
>
> > On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > >
> > > At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
> > > would be marked orphan.
> >
> > Well, if FESCO
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 04:05:04PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:58:54 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
> > > perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
> > > perl-SVN-Simple iburrell
> >
> > There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
> >
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:13:29 +0100, Ralf wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >
> > At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
> > would be marked orphan.
>
> Well, if FESCO thinks this was a good idea ... I think you guys stopped
> half-ways: You better
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:13:29AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Unfortunately, this has proven to be hard/impossible so far.
>
> >> perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
>
> I intended to ta
On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
>> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
>> are the oldest non-building packages in the
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not fail
> to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that fail to
> build?
>
Because this isn't a fully proper non-responsive maintainer approach, we
felt it was on
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:58:54 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not
> fail to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that
> fail to build?
There may be some cases of that. If so, the non responsive maintainer
procedure should b
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > What about the other packages of these maintainers? E.g. in the
> > recordmydesktop case, there were four bugs open with working patches
> > attached for that package. I di
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> > > since the Fedora 11 time frame
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> > since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
> > are the oldest non-buil
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:17 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Any package still orphaned as of the Feb 16 F13 Alpha freeze will be
> dropped per standard operating procedure.
>
>
I might attempt to drop them a bit earlier than alpha freeze, so that if
there is unexpected fallout we have time to fix it
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
> are the oldest non-building packages in the distribution, everything
> else (over 8800) mana
81 matches
Mail list logo
