Dne 18. 09. 20 v 10:24 Petr Pisar napsal(a): > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:09:51PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 17. 09. 20 v 18:29 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): >>> Well, many maintainers don't touch packages that keep working and don't >>> need updates or bugfixes. >> That is perfectly fine and I expect that in such cases, the maintainer >> would step up and responded to BZ, explained situation and intentions, >> everything would be documented and we could move on. But maintainers >> also does not touch packages, because the keep building and that is >> different situation. >> > I think that nagging maintainers with "Do you want to keep your package in > Fedora" question is too burdensome for the maintainers and a disservice for > the users. This is not about nagging maintainer for the purpose of nagging them. > >>> So, if we know the package doesn't work, we >>> should file a bug on it. If not, I am not sure if we should try and >>> remove such packages. >> Just out of curiosity, I filed this bug: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880144 >> >> I used to see a lot of similar packages in Ruby land. Nowadays, they are >> finally gone, because somebody used the non-responsive maintainer policy >> in the end. But I don't want to use non-responsive maintainer policy, >> because I think some package does not serve it purpose anymore. >> > How exactly does a presence of that package offend you? Maybe because I am maintainer of ruby and rubygem-sinatra and I do care if packages which depends on them keep working? And just FTR, I came to rubygem-sinatra-rabbit checking that rubygem-haml is broken. Please note that I am not maintainer of that package, but I do care about Ruby in Fedora in general. > That relengs have to > rebuild it twice a year? That you have to download the few kilobytes in > repodata? That when you change Ruby packaging standards, you have to patch the > spec file? > > I think that a package should be removed for a real issue that it causes. Not > because of its age. I agree, and "old" was not the best term. "zombie" is much better probably. I used that term right in the first paragraph of the original email. It already got lost here. I update the subject to be more clear. > >> Actually, maintaining 200 packages myself, it might happen that some of >> them are in zombie state. I would not mind if they were called out via >> this process. >> > Then start with yourself. Go and file bugs for your 200 packages. Then review > whether they are used by Fedora users. Be ware that Fedora packager is not > a Fedora user. And then close the bugs or retire the packages. And then come > and tell us how much fruitful it was and how much productive you were. > > If you feel exhausted by maintaingin the 200 packages, then orphan them. > Fedora already has a process for dealing with unmaintained packages. > A spoiler: Eventually they will be removed from the distribution. You get it wrong. I feel exhausted seeing again and again packages which are very likely broken, serving no purpose. I feel exhausted seeing that these packages pull in dependency chains which are not possible to be updated or removed due to them. Vít
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ 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
