>>>>> "MH" == Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: MH> If we stop here, the current "setting to ASSIGNED to stop this" MH> remains a problem. Let's think about why this is perceived as a problem. The maintainer has performed an affirmative act that shows they noticed. Can't we just accept that as some statement of intent and stop bugging them at that point? Further emails have utility only as periodic reminders, and experience has shown that we can't predict whether those would be perceived positively or negatively. Certainly the _real_ problem here (that the packages fail to build) isn't solved by continuing to send bug spam mail. And similarly, we should spend time to evaluate why that is perceived as a problem. If a package is installable and works, certainly it meets some acceptability criteria for packages in the distribution and fails others. So let's list a few (not a comprehensive list, I'm sure): 1. Can end users install and use the package properly? 2. Does the package have unresolved security issues which would prevent end users from using it safely? 3. Does the package somehow prevent progress or cause additional maintenance burden elsewhere in Fedora? 4. Can those packages be consumed by those who want to modify or rebuild them locally? I think the last two points are often missed in the discussion. If someone keeps having to maintain some old compatibility package because packages which use it can't be rebuilt for a new version, then that's a problem (but it's an issue that goes beyond FTBFS). Still, people who maintain such compatibility packages should still be able to drop them, under the doctrine that nobody can force them to maintain them. And then point #1 would fail, which we all agree should force the removal of a package. And if someone goes to check out a package from git or grabs an SRPM and finds that they can't actually build it, even after spending time setting up a proper build environment (which I know isn't terribly difficult, but still), then that's not great. I know I do this all the time, but maybe that's atypical. It still looks a bit sloppy in any case. I do think our duty to people who want to do that goes beyond simply complying with licenses and handing out source. So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and aren't causing maintenance burden elsewhere (which needs input from the release engineering folks and such as to whether these things waste their time). But I do think that everyone who advocates for that position needs to consider the negatives. These things do have nonzero impact even if it's not immediately obvious. And everyone needs to be aware that unbuildable packages are more prone to being removed pretty much as soon as they impede work elsewhere in the distribution. - J< _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
