Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Viktor Jancik
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

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Rex Dieter
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 packa

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Michael Schwendt
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,

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Michael Schwendt
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 th

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
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 Fedor

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Jan Chaloupka
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 drupal

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
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.

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
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

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Till Maas
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 pa

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Ken Dreyer
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 c