----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 10:12:06 AM > Subject: Re: [ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17 > > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Are you trying to say the Fedora Project has made it much too easy > > for > > them to leave and have their account disabled, too? > > I'm saying that it's the ever-increasing bureaucracy which causes us > to lose > maintainers, that's all. > > > No, it isn't. Even in the scenario of project-wide write-access to > > packages, there must be someone to decide when to perform an > > upgrade. > > Not if we make it a project-wide policy to upgrade whenever there > isn't a > strong reason not to (as I've been proposing all this time) and > encourage > provenpackagers (or even any packagers) to just upgrade the packages > (unless > the maintainer explicitly left a note in the specfile why it > shouldn't be > upgraded and the reason given actually makes sense), instead of > discouraging > it as we do now. > > With that, the policy would be: You think the software is old? You > upgrade > it. Problem solved. > > >> and I don't have the time to do it all alone anymore.) > > > > Which is proof that your entire proposal won't work either. > > No, it's not. If we all made it a habit to (and I believe that would > be > WITHIN our CURRENT policies, though a policy change actively > encouraging > this would be helpful) just rebuild packages with broken dependencies > as we > see them, there wouldn't ever be so many that a single person can't > handle > it (and even if there would, it wouldn't be a problem because it > would NOT > be a single person to do it). The problem only starts when it's only > me! It's not only you. There are a bunch of guys doing all kind of distro-wide work in different areas - most of the time invisible to each other. And most of the broken packages for long time are packages that really don't have anyone interested with some people trying to rescue them (though I'm not sure that even if built they would work). To give an example in Java SIG we take care of packages that are generally useful and not some obsolete junk. So despite the fact that you see frysk, glib-java, cairo-java, gtk-java and etc. as packages with broken dependencies the truth is that these have been obsoleted by java-gnome for years but java-gnome is not a dropin replacement for glib-java, cairo-java... and people still try to keep them because of frysk instead of porting frysk to the new lib. That's fine by me everyone is free to do whatever he/she wants but in this example it's 3rd fedora release where these packages are on the list for removal and everytime someone takes them and doesn't maintain them after that ending with being orphaned for the next release and not building for most of the dev cycle. If it's only because of such examples - we need this procedure I would even love an automated removing of packages that are orphaned for more than 3 months. Note that this doesn't conflict with your idea of people doing upgrades everytime they see them. I actually love it and practice it on packages in my area of work. And I strongly encourage people to do so with my package but old junk should die it's just taking our precious time for no benefit. And yes I'm not ready to take packages just to deprecate them whenever I see them. Noone interested - it should die !!! Alex > > > No. We need _more_ packagers, even if that means, many more _newbie > > packagers_. If there is at least one user for package, at least one > > of > > these users ought to contribute to the packaging. > > Easier said than done. Getting people to contribute that way has had > very > limited success, many users are just not interested in packaging > (they come > up with all sorts of excuses when I ask them the usual "You want this > software in Fedora? Why don't YOU package and maintain it?" > question), plus > we're actually not making it easy at all to start packaging. Not only > is > there the endless bureaucracy which also annoys existing maintainers, > but > the sponsorship (and package review) process can also be a big > hurdle. In > the meantime, we're removing packages people actually need, and > making it a > real PITA to resurrect them. (If I want to pick up a package I missed > in one > of the previous "retiring" announcements, I have to get it through > all the > review process again just as if it had never been in Fedora!) > > Kevin Kofler > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
