Matthew Miller wrote:
> Well, except, it clearly *does* work that way. We have many
> lightly-maintained packages in practice.
Do we really? Which are those packages?
The one that keeps getting brought up is Tomcat, but I can tell you from my
personal experience that the Fedora Tomcat package has always been working
just fine (not only as a build dependency, but for its intended use as a web
application server: I use it to locally test Java web applications).
> I think it's better to label them as such and find positive ways to
> encourage the collaboration I think we all agree is best, rather than the
> current state where we basically just pretend that everything is
> maintained with high attention.
I think that if a maintainer is not able to offer a package the attention
they think it needs, they should ask for help, not mark the package as
unsupported or hidden. That is how the collaborative approach is supposed to
work.
Now, if no help shows up, that can only mean one of two things:
* either the package is actually working so well that no help is really
needed,
* or nobody actually cares enough about the package to give it more
attention.
In both cases, the package is working well enough for what is actually
needed and there is no need to give it any special marking.
But the situation into which we want to get is that the help is not only
requested by the maintainer, but that comaintainers actually sign up for it.
But that requires upholding a cooperative environment. Privatizing build
dependencies by marking them as "lightly maintained" achieves the exact
opposite.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
