2010/7/2 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:40:11 +0200, Matěj wrote: > >> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a): >> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans >> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons >> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask! >> >> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a >> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in >> my thinking. > > The provenpackager, who has had 8 month to notice such a problem, has had > 8 months to start the non-responsive maintainer procedure. What will > happen the next time the package is affected by a bad problem? Does the > same provenpackager now keep an eye on the package and will be available > to fix it much sooner? Or will it takes 8 months again, because that is > possible in the Fedora package collection? > This procedure is a bit idealistic, IMHO. A package which has a FTBFS bug will wait for two release cycles before orphaning it, it's too long(many of those FTBFS packages can work properly). Furthermore, we don't even have a way to orphan a particular package which is unmaintained or has a lot of unsolved issues but don't have a FTBFS bug. Regards, Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
