On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:27:41PM +0000, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 06/01/25 18:50, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 6:03 PM Stephen Smoogen <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 11:49, Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 10:05 AM Mattia Verga via devel > >>> <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Despite 0.16 being available as tag in repository since 2015, libnova > >>>> was never updated and it's still 0.15 in Fedora. > >>>> > >>>> I have notified the package maintainer long ago [1], but I never got a > >>>> reply. So I plan to push an update as provenpackager, which will include > >>>> a soname bump (from libnova-0.15.so.0 to libnova-0.16.so.0) and rebuild > >>>> all dependent packages in a side-tag for Rawhide. The list of affected > >>>> packages is: > >>> Please don't use provenpackager privileges for this kind of thing. > >>> If the maintainer is truly unresponsive, that's what the unresponsive > >>> maintainer process is for. > >> > >> If this is not what 'proven packagers' are allowed to do, it might be good to have everyone who has proven packager go through some sort of "retraining" as what Mattia announced doing has been common practice for a long time. It actually seems covered by https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages/ > >> > >> If the packager doesn’t keep track of those items, then other experienced packagers are free to fix stuff for them. > >> > >> I am expecting that this is an area which needs more clarity. > > On the page you linked, there's a list of examples of situations when > > using PP privileges is appropriate, just below the paragraph you > > quoted - security issues, bugs that cause data loss, etc. But "just > > update to a new version" is not on the list. That's clear enough in my > > book ... but sure, documentation can always be improved. For example, > > I'm not sure if this page predates the non-responsive maintainer > > process (it feels very old), so maybe it just has never been adapted > > to its existence. > > > > Fabio > > Oh, I've missed the fact that I indeed have commit rights to libnova > through astro-sig... so I'll use my PP rights just to rebuild stellarium > (kstars is under astro-sig too and the other packages I maintain them > directly). > > If that's not ok neither, I will ask stellarium maintainers to rebuild > the package under the side-tag when ready. A rebuild for a changed SONAME in a different package is certainly fine using provenpackager privileges. It's both a "small adjustment" (a rebuild without any changes in the package) and a part of a "mass rebuild" as listed in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages/. It also matches common practice and understanding. That said, the text in that page could be updated to list such cases clearly. Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ 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
