>>>>> "FW" == Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: FW> Debian treats FTBFS bugs as release-critical. They either have to FW> be fixed, or the package gets removed from the release. However, FW> this is not an automated process. Of course, Debian works on a slightly different release schedule, so it's not exactly a direct comparison. FW> I wonder if something similar could work for Fedora: The package FW> would remain available in rawhide, but would be removed from the FW> release composes. That's an interesting option, I suppose. In part I think it depends on just why some people have been upset over the recent orphaning. Is it the removal from the distribution, the shock of having the project say "we don't want this package any longer", the fact that user's won't be able to access the package any longer, the annoyance with process for getting the package into the distribution if it's fixed, or something else? (Certainly those aren't mutually exclusive and the true answer is more complicated and differs between people.) Technical solutions to some of these are possible, though I don't know how feasible they would be. Procedural solutions (such as making it easier for such packages to get back into the distribution) could also help. FW> In the end, someone has to fix the packages eventually, and the FW> package maintainers are probably best qualified to deal with that. FW> If they lack the resources for that, it points to a much more FW> significant problem that needs solving separately, I think. Yes, this is fundamental. - 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
