On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:57:18 +0200, 80 wrote: > By mere curiosity, why didn't we follow the usual renaming process (and > avoid losing the previous history in git) ? > It was just an upstream rename due to a trademark issue. The rename process may have been followed, but the renamed packages have not been reviewed painstakingly. At least 15 subpackages had not been replaced ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1001603 ). And retiring packages is too difficult in Fedora. The process is complex or not known by all packagers: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Some retire only in pkgdb (some create orphans instead, which somebody else picks up without checking history), others only create the dead.package file. Renaming is particularly more complicated, if another packager needs to take action and retire something properly prior to another (mass-)rebuild. I've opened tickets about the "undeads" below, but I'm not sure there will be a response to all of them. Basically, all of them should be blocked in koji for F20 and newer *and* retired in pkgdb, and the undeads are not marked dead in git yet. Dead and all builds obsoleted: ------------------------------ classads ibus-table-array30 openstack-quantum pdfbook python-cryptsetup python-quantumclient Undead and all builds obsoleted: -------------------------------- drupal6-drush jaxen-bootstrap joystick kdirstat latexdiff nss-myhostname pdfjam ps2eps seahorse-plugins zeitgeist-datahub -- http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/obscheck-remote.py -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
