On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Because nobody is communicating with upstream and fixing it there. In > some cases it'll be met with a shrug (like changelogs). In many, it > might actually result in upstream making a similar fix. What is "upstream", though? Some repository the packager uses to hold the spec files? The actual upstream project that's being packaged? Some other distribution's package repository? Presumably the people doing automated cleanups would need to know this information, somehow. And if an automated cleanup involves hundreds or thousands of packages, is it realistic to have the person doing that cleanup look up and contact various different upstreams manually for all of these? Doesn't this make it harder, not easier, to do automated package cleanups? We have been telling people for a while now that they don't "own" their packages. Making it easier for people to maintain their packages outside of dist-git and (effectively) ignore changes from proven-packagers seems to take us in the opposite direction. If this is really something that's necessary, maybe it would be good to require someone's approval (FESCo? FPC?) to maintain a package outside of Fedora dist-git. Then at least the number of such packages could be hopefully kept low. Ben Rosser _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/JUDNK2UZQCAZUNDJGQWOWJNVD67WGC7H/
