On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup >> >> Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you >> reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong >> place.... >> >> Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintained, so reporting bugs is >> not likely to result in fixes. It's not even user-visible, for many >> years, now due to some problem with the appdata file. But there's no >> chance of a fix if the issue isn't reported, so still a good idea.... >> > > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? > 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream > is dead and they aren't going to maintain things. > 3. If someone isn't going to read the bugzillas why do we even have > them in bugzilla or the distribution? Yeah really, I thought this is what orphaned means? -- Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
