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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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