On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:47:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > The longstanding FTBFS thing is harder. In principle we do actually > retire things that haven't built for multiple releases; in practice, > things apparently get missed. pathfinder logiweb and python-rpi-gpio, > for example, were all on the chopping block for F21: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-June/199524.html > > Though all mysteriously disappeared from the final warning: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-July/200694.html IIRC they disappeared because I used the from cutoff date for F21 initially, i.e. only packages with a F18 disttag were removed back then. > Apparently for F22 we only retired packages with broken dependencies, > and didn't consider long-term FTBFS: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-April/210208.html > > I'm not sure that was intentional. We should be consistent. This might have been skipped since there was no mass-rebuild for F22 or some bug in the reporting script. > Common to all of this is a certain reactive posture. There's not a > dashboard view of "sick packages". Which could be useful along a number I would like to have this as well. There was a package status report ages ago when I joined Fedora done by someone who left the project. I still have the scripts if someone wants to work on them, but I never got to resurrect them. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
