Patrice Dumas wrote:
orphaned = maintainable, but with out a maintainer
legacy = unmaintainable and with out a maintainer
legacy (use any other better name) could also be unmaintainable in devel
branch but with a maintainer. So the package could still be maintained
but would not have a devel or a new fc directory in cvs. So it would be
a co-maintainership if somebody steps up to maintain it for devel.
If there is also no objection, perhaps we can start a legacy packages
page also, to house unmaintainable packages?
You mean unmaintainable in devel? Otherwise it is just orphaned.
I think "legacy" is confusing what I am meaning. So I will refer to it
as dropped/retired.
orphaned = no maintainer
dropped/retired = no maintainer and unmaintainable
That is my suggestion.
If a package has a maintainer, then it does not need to be listed as an
orphaned/dropped/retired package.
If a package has a maintainer and is unmaintainable, then that's the
packagers problem to resolve.
I am wanting to make it clearer which packages are orphaned, which ones
have been dropped/retired and clearly defining how a package gets a
dropped/retired status.
Michael
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
