On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 11:34 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06. 01. 20 12:17, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:35 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Dear maintainers. > >> > >> Based on the latest fail to build from source policy, the following packages > >> will be retired from Fedora 32 approximately one week before branching (February > >> 2020). > >> > >> Policy: > >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ > >> > >> The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 30. > >> > >> This report is based on dist tags. > >> > >> Packages collected via: > >> https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb > >> > >> If you see a package that was built, please let me know. > >> If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me > >> know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that. > >> > >> If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so. > >> > >> Package (co)maintainers Latest build > >> ================================================================================ > >> elasticsearch hubbitus, jvanek, lbazan, Fedora 24 > >> zbyszek > >> expresso jamielinux, nodejs-sig, Fedora 28 > >> patches > >> libocrdma ocrdma Fedora 27 > >> nuvola-app-google-calendar martinkg Fedora 29 > >> nuvola-app-groove martinkg Fedora 28 > >> nuvola-app-logitech-media- martinkg Fedora 29 > >> server > >> nuvola-app-plex martinkg Fedora 29 > >> nuvola-app-soundcloud martinkg Fedora 29 > >> nuvola-app-yandex-music martinkg Fedora 29 > >> shim-unsigned-aarch64 pjones Fedora 28 > >> shim-unsigned-x64 pjones Fedora 28 > >> > >> The following packages require above mentioned packages: > >> Depending on: expresso (1) > >> nodejs-chrono (maintained by: jamielinux, nodejs-sig, tomh) > >> nodejs-chrono-1.0.5-10.fc31.src requires npm(expresso) = 0.9.2 > >> > >> Affected (co)maintainers > >> hubbitus: elasticsearch > >> jamielinux: expresso > >> jvanek: elasticsearch > >> lbazan: elasticsearch > >> martinkg: nuvola-app-soundcloud, nuvola-app-logitech-media-server, > >> nuvola-app-yandex-music, nuvola-app-groove, nuvola-app-google-calendar, > >> nuvola-app-plex > >> nodejs-sig: expresso > >> ocrdma: libocrdma > >> patches: expresso > >> pjones: shim-unsigned-aarch64, shim-unsigned-x64 > > > > These two are now assigned, why are they still in the list? > > Because they were not rebuilt since Fedora 28. Any bug status does not have any > impact on this. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ > > "Cca a week before the Fedora N mass branching, packages that weren’t > successfully rebuilt at least in Fedora N-2 will be retired assuming there have > been at least 5 warnings on the devel mailing list. The bug status has no effect > on this retirement." > > This is part of the policy to prevent maintainers form simply ASSIGNING bugs > forever without fixing anything. > > As said in the e-mail, if you think the policy needs to be adapted, please > discuss - I have made sure the recent changes in the policy are discussed with > the community, especially since you were so angry when I followed the previous > one. Unfortunately, there was no input from you when the policy was discussed, > despite me repeatedly asking you to stop being angry at me and participate in > the policy discussion instead. What recent discussions, I've not actually looked at a lot of Fedora related stuff much since August because of constant travel and things related directly to my $dayjob so I likely missed any of the discussion if it's happened since then. Angry, I wasn't angry, annoyed certainly. It does annoy me that we're driving away packagers that have a little time here and there with these policies, I feel we have too few contributors already and aggressive policies and enforcement only make it worse. > Also said in the e-mail, if you think those packages need to be exempted from > the process, we can deal with that to, however there must be a valid reason. I > don't think "the maintainer didn't actually maintain their Fedora packages for > almost 2 years because they have real stuff to do" is a valid reason, yet other > FESCo members might disagree with that statement. Well the FTB from people pushing builds would be directly due to the fact they're not on the ACL for the secure-boot, there is a handful of packages like that. Well FESCo might agree that they want booting x86 images with secure-boot so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ _______________________________________________ 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
