On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:39:29 +0200 ville.skytta@xxxxxx (Ville Skyttä) wrote: > On Monday 26 February 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:00:43 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > Yeah, there needs to be periodic 'culling' of the orphans. > > > If they haven't been picked up in a while (how long?) they should > > > get: > > > > > > - removed from the repository (all branches?) > > > > Of course! All branches! Else it creates broken upgrades and bug > > reports that go to "orphan owner". > > That's only a partial solution, it won't help people who installed it > while it was available which is very confusing. IMO that'd make it a > no go; instead either > > 1) Never remove orphaned packages from non-devel distros only because > they're orphaned, and do document whatever there is to document about > them in the next release notes (at least a list with a caveat that it > is possible that some of them will reappear later and thus the > accuracy of the information is likely to decrease as time passes from > the release date), or The downside here, as Michael mentioned is that users will then file bugs and it will go to the orphan alias and be ignored, or if we remove the bugzilla component entirely, they won't even be able to file a bug at all. No one will be watching the package for security issues most likely either. ;( > 2) Arrange a way to have the orphaned packages removed or at least > suggested to be removed from end user systems at the time they > disappear from repositories. Far from nice in the first place, and > possibly a PITA if one has local/3rd party packages that have > dependencies to removed stuff. Yeah, could be that would cause problems, but I wonder if it's worth trying... create a 'fedora-orphans' package. When things are orphaned, that package gets added to it: Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR If the package is unorphaned, just bump release and it's back in business. I do suspect this will make some mad users if they use other repos or locally built packages however. Just a thought... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
