Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 6:32 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Fabio,
>
> > > rust-sval                         @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_buffer                  @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_derive                  @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_derive_macros           @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_dynamic                 @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_flatten                 @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_fmt                     @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_json                    @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_nested                  @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_ref                     @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_serde                   @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-sval_test                    @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-value-bag                    @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-value-bag-serde1             @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> > > rust-value-bag-sval2              @rust-sig, orphan                0 weeks ago
> >
> > For reference:
> >
> > The sval / value-bag crates were previously pulled in by a feature
> > explicitly marked as "unstable" in the "log" crate. In the end, it
> > turned out they were only needed because of *one* unused,
> > tracing-level "structured data" log statement that pulled in this
> > feature in *one* package (rust-async-std). I have since patched out
> > that useless log statement from "async-std" and dropped the "unstable"
> > feature for structured logging from "log", and so the sval / value-bag
> > crates are now unused in Fedora.
> >
> > Keeping all these libraries updated is rather painful (the dependency
> > graph looks like spaghetti soup due to the number of
> > inter-dependencies - yes, I have a pretty picture), so I have orphaned
> > the packages. If nobody wants to pick them up because they would need
> > them for something they're working on, it is safe to have them get
> > retired automatically in 6 weeks.
>
> Would it be better to force retired them so they're dropped from F-41
> for GA? They can always be easily recovered in the 6 weeks without
> review if needed.

This has crossed my mind, yes.
And I will likely do just that before the final freeze takes effect
next week, but this way people that might be interested have a week's
time to pick up the packages.

Fabio
-- 
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux