Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:45:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora >> branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the >> dead.package file. It can say something like "EPEL-only package." > > EPEL-only packages should be retired as described in the FAQ: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Is_it_possible_to_get_a_package_only_into_EPEL_and_not_Fedora.3F > > Regards > Till Thanks Kevin and Till. I've done the Rawhide retirement for mod_proxy_fcgi (an EPEL 6-only package). - Ken -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:45:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora > branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the > dead.package file. It can say something like "EPEL-only package." EPEL-only packages should be retired as described in the FAQ: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Is_it_possible_to_get_a_package_only_into_EPEL_and_not_Fedora.3F Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
Dne 21.8.2015 v 19:48 Viktor Jancik napsal(a): > Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec > file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. > > Is this desired? Here is the list: > > > rubygem-amq-protocol Package was probably never imported after review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203105 > rubygem-connection_pool Package was probably never imported after review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967334 > rubygem-faker Package was probably never imported after review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960142 > rubygem-lumberjack Package was probably never imported after review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960064 > rubygem-sigdump Package not imported after review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180378 Adding Graeme and Anuj on CC, hopefully they can narrow the situation. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
Dne 21.8.2015 v 19:48 Viktor Jancik napsal(a): > Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec > file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. > > Is this desired? Here is the list: > > > rubygem-amq-protocol This was never imported. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203105 > rubygem-connection_pool Package was probably never imported after review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967334 > rubygem-faker Package was probably never imported after review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960142 > rubygem-lumberjack Package was probably never imported after review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960064 > rubygem-sigdump Package not imported after review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1180378 Adding Anuj and Gillies on CC. Hopefully they will narrow the situation. Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
Hi On 08/21/2015 07:48 PM, Viktor Jancik wrote: Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. Is this desired? Here is the list: askbot-plugin-authfas autoconf268 bwping Django14 drupal7-honeypot drupal7-xmlsitemap fetch-crl3 gnuplot44 golang-github-mitchellh-cli Known issue with golang-github-mitchellh-cli. Package owner just have not imported srpm. I have already contacted him. Jeff, can you finished the import? Jan gsview infomas-asl jama jaxws-undertow-httpspi kdelibs-webkit kde-plasma-networkmanagement-extras libgssh mediawiki116-Cite mediawiki116-ParserFunctions mingw-libidl mod_proxy_fcgi nodejs-smart-buffer nyancat openmolar openstack-selinux php53-simplepie pilas pipsi PyQt4-webkit python26-imaging python26-markupsafe python26-msgpack python26-numpy python26-PyXML python34 python-backport_collections python-compyte python-crypto2.1 python-genshi06 python-importlib python-lmdb python-multiprocessing python-paramiko1.10 python-schema python-webob1.4 qpid-snmpd retrace-client rubygem-amq-protocol rubygem-connection_pool rubygem-faker rubygem-lumberjack rubygem-sigdump sahara-image-elements sasquatch senamirmir-washra-font senna status-report stupid-package sugar-paths tesla-pom tnt trace-gui vera++ withlock xfce4-soundmenu-plugin zabbix22 I came to the conclusion, that these repositories are simply missing a dead.package file. I apologize for any false positives. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
Rex Dieter wrote: > At least some of these are epel-only packages (examples below) > > dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in > fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently? EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the dead.package file. It can say something like "EPEL-only package." Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:02:41 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in > fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently? It prevents new branches from being created. Will there be more empty branches in the future, if the dead.package will still be missing? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:48:44 -0400 (EDT), Viktor Jancik wrote: > Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec > file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. > > Is this desired? Here is the list: [...] > I came to the conclusion, that these repositories are simply missing a > dead.package file. I apologize for any false positives. > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/autoconf268.git/log/ Initial setup of the repoHEADmasterf23 Fedora Release Engineering 2015-03-11 2 -0/+0 Looks like a new package request. Five months old without any activity from the maintainer in the master and f23 branches. But a package has been imported into the el6 branch. It smells like grey area. Could it be a package for EL6 only? What to do with the Rawhide master branch then? Perhaps it's not obvious whether to mark it dead in that case. Here's the review's SCM Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195375#c7 Branches: el6 Voila! The process instructions don't give a hint what to do with the implicitly created master/devel branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file
Viktor Jancik wrote: > Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec > file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master > branch. At least some of these are epel-only packages (examples below) dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently? > kdelibs-webkit > kde-plasma-networkmanagement-extras > PyQt4-webkit -- rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
