On 1.10.2018 19:29, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 1.10.2018 18:29, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 1.10.2018 17:55, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
SJS> What packages? And where are they depending on it?
I believe the underlying issue is that previously the Fedora
python-matplotib package produced both python2 and python3 subpackages.
But recently it dropped support for python2.
Yes.
What I don't understand is:
1) Why my access was removed from the package and set to 'orphan'.
There is no separate set of permissions for EPEL branches but I'd think
that the new Fedora maintainer would have been simply added to the list
of admins.
I haven't in any way removed you form the package. I simply followed
this procedure:
1. package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1630799
2. requesting a dist-git repo:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8211
3. the repo exists, unretire on Fedora:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7826
("It doesn't really exist in EPEL; the current EPEL package is just a
stub that depends on python-matplotlib. The Fedora package will be a
completely different thing. There shouldn't be any conflict between
them.")
So apparently, this is where you were removed, because I wrote:
> FAS username of the new maintainer? churchyard
And that simply meant "replace current main admin with me".
This was certainly not intended. I've also cced you in the request so
you are aware of the unretirement. Neither of us noticed the consequence.
4. imported with history
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-matplotlib/pull-request/1
5. built
6. announced
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/PWZLITS74FYXASZGDF4W7G7LNJNYY4H5/
7. orphaned when I no longer wanted to maintain it. no other
maintainers were present at this point.
Note that at the point, I haven't noticed that this is weird. I should
have. I've only seen it as an action that removes me.
If at any point of the process you got kicked out of the package, this
was certainly not my intent.
2) Why a package was added and then immediately orphaned. In an attempt
to clean up the mess I'm told that there's now a six week period of time
during which the package has to stay live. So this package was imported
with no expectation that it would be maintained only to start some
running clock. And for the duration of that clock, I get to keep the
mess by default?
The package was added because it was needed. It was orphaned because I
don't want to maintain it. Or do I have to maintain the package for
ever juts because I've put it in there? What's the difference between
orphaning it 1 week after introducing it, 1 year or a decade?
My idea and motivation here was that somebody who needs it will take it.
I've tried. Nobody wanted it. I've orphaned it, hoping that once it
appears in the "orphaned packages in need for maintainers"
announcement, somebody will take it.
The "mess" was not "yours" to keep. There was never any mess in the
EPEL branch(es). The only mess that exists now is that the package was
retired and things will start FTBFS and have broken deps (on Fedora),
how can we sort this mess out, I have no idea. Certainly we can
unretire it, but I won't do it just to have it retired again as a mess
that needs to get out.
I'm rather unhappy about this. I had previously raised my objection to
this and requested coordination in this FESCo comment:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1970#comment-532232 but it appears to have
happened anyway.
I haven't read that as objection. I've understand it as confusion.
You've asked to tell you if there is somebody to give this package to.
There is nobody. Nobody wants it.
Also, in the releng ticket you've pointed out that this will in no way
clash with the EPEL package. Yet now it seems you retired the package
only because you are the maintainer of the EPEL package (or at least
you should have remained the maintainer).
I don't understand what I've done wrong. I think that every maintainer
has a right to orphan a package at any time.
On the other hand, just retiring a package that other packages depend
on seems like a weird way of dealing with a problem.
I'm sorry that you were removed form the package. It was not by my
action. It might have been a side effect of the unretirement (I
haven't anticipated that side effect).
I'm very sorry that you feel like I went behind your back and like I
did a wrong thing here. This was no trick, this was no calculated move
to strip the package from you or to create a pressure on some other
packagers. This was a simple scenario:
* split a package into two halves
* orphan one of the halves that I don't want to maintain
In fact, I was planning to this for python-SecretStorage as well.
Should I rather not? What should be the correct way of doing this?
And what shall happen with python2-matplotlib in Fedora?
Proposal:
We revert the "Undo the mess that was checked in." commit.
We unblock the package in Koji (if blocked).
It's blocked:
$ koji list-pkgs --show-blocked --tag f30 --package python2-matplotlib
Package Tag Extra Arches Owner
----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------
---------------
python2-matplotlib f30 releng
[BLOCKED]
python2-matplotlib-2.2.3-2.fc30 is untagged.
I'll add:
bugzilla_contact:
Fedora: orphan
To
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/blob/master/f/rpms/python2-matplotlib
You stay as the main admin, to keep the EPEL branches.
Or we could add:
bugzilla_contact:
Fedora EPEL: tibbs
And make orphan the main admin.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
