On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 12:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:12:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 16:30 -0500, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Author: mschwendt > > > > > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gtkglarea2/devel > > > In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2108/gtkglarea2/devel > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > gtkglarea2.spec > > > Log Message: > > > Build disabled. Package is without maintainer. > > > > This package clearly provides evidence of why "orphaning packages" is > > unnecessarily strict, and why adding additional states of package > > maintainership are useful > > (c.f. > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-March/msg00149.html) > > > > I have this package in a dep chain of a package I am using outside of > > Fedora, and therefore had expressed my will to "have an eye on this > > package" but am not interested in permanently maintaining this package. > > > > Apparently others (notably Gerard Milmeister, he recently seems to have > > adapted the spec to FC5) are in a similar position. > > No, not a similar position. Gerard _depends_ on this package within FE > (lablgtk). Which is why last night in the Wiki I moved this package from > the list of "packages without maintainer" to "potentially orphaned > packages". Note that I did not delete the binaries. However, owners.list > does not reflect your (or Gerard's) interest in this package. The Wiki did. > > Here FESCo's policy of "strict maintainer<->package" apparently fails, > > while collaborative, "keep package alive-maintainership" wouldn't be a > > problem (gtkglarea2 is discontinued and stagnating for years, > > nevertheless it still works and is being used). > > See above. Add yourself to CC in owners.list (provided that this feature > still works or will be corrected if it is broken). I'll try. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
