Florin Andrei wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 00:04 -0600, Brandon Holbrook wrote:
Unique to my request, however, is that my package requires an upgrade of
libshout to at least version 2.0 which was released mid-2003, so doesn't
seem like an unreasonable request. libshout, it turns out, is already a
package in Extras, owned by Thomas Vander Stichele
(thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx). After a suggestion by Jochen, I submitted a RFE
in bugzilla to update libshout to 2.x, or at least create a libshout2
package that I would be more than happy to maintain
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181523). Thomas,
however, has yet to comment on the RFE, and apparently according to the
Wiki's FC5Status, he has yet to rebuild ANY of his packages for FC5,
making his MIA a burden on us all, not just me.
Deadbeat maintainers should be automatically disowned.
No sign of life in X amount of time ==> package becomes orphan
automatically. Make it a policy and put an end to debates.
I've had something similar with a bug in a package which was owned by
Thomas, I ended up fixing it myself (in a very bad way) and then Thomas
surfaced, he is also probably reading this, this should get him awake,
if not then .... ?
And it seems currently nothing is using libshout so an upgrade could be
done real painless atleast in devel, and should be done for FC5 release
IMHO, much better then having 2 versions around:
[root@shalem ~]# rpm -q --provides libshout
libshout-1.0.9-4.x86_64
libshout.so.2()(64bit)
libshout = 1.0.9-4
[root@shalem ~]# repoquery -q --whatrequires libshout.so.2
[root@shalem ~]# repoquery -q --whatrequires libshout.so.2()(64bit)
-bash: syntax error near unexpected token `('
[root@shalem ~]# repoquery -q --whatrequires 'libshout.so.2()(64bit)'
[root@shalem ~]#
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
