>>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer writes: JB> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:51:39AM -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote: >>>>>>> "OP" == Orion Poplawski writes: >> OP> buildsys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> gdal has broken dependencies in the development tree: >>>> On ppc: >>>> gdal-1.6.0-4.fc11.ppc64 requires libhdf5.so.5()(64bit) >>>> gdal-1.6.0-4.fc11.ppc64 requires libodbcinst.so.1()(64bit) >>>> gdal-1.6.0-4.fc11.ppc64 requires libodbc.so.1()(64bit) >> OP> I'm happy to do the bootstrap rebuild to fix this, but ACLs are closed. >> >> I've repeatedly requested the maintainer open up the ACLs on these >> packages, but never received a response to my e-mails on this subject. >> It's very frustrating. >> >> What is the procedure in these cases to get a maintainer to justify >> keeping ACLs closed? Escalate to FESCo? JB> Does the maintainer still fix bugs and otherwise work on the package? JB> If not, start the AWOL maintainer process. The maintainer does work on the package, so he isn't strictly non-responsive. But the packages are broken sometimes for several weeks or even up to several month the maintainer and rarely responds to direct e-mail or bug reports (for example I, and others, have open requests to us as co-maintainers for months now and he hasn't approved or rejected them): http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/mapnik http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/gdal This means that the stack of GIS-related packages he maintains remains broken in rawhide for a long time, meaning less time for testing before general release. If he opened up ACLs others could step up and fix/rebuild packages when appropriate in the interim. The issue here is that he hasn't justified provided any justification for closing ACLs. I thought the idea of the mass ACL opening to 'provenpackager' was that a justification is required for keeping ACLs closed. Alex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
