You need to stop thinking in terms of branches etc.
an orphan status is black and white
has a maintainer or it doesn't
It has nothing to do with which branch it may end up in if someone takes
ownership of the orphan.
Michael
Patrice Dumas wrote:
Else the list of orphans will grow as we continue in "devel" and
old orphans exist only in the old branches.
I don't really understand this sentence. Do you mean that the number
of orphaned packages that don't have a devel branch (and, as time goes
by, that don't have branches for branches that are newer than the branch
that was active at the time the package was orphaned) will only grow?
That seems to be quite normal, as long as fedora extras grow. Those
packages will only disapear when all the fedora extras packages for a
their newest branch are retired (maybe because the fedora core legacy has
ceased to exist for that branch). Is it an issue?
I'm a proponent of the
all-or-nothing strategy: orphaned binaries are deleted from all active
(i.e. still supported branches). Once a new maintainer is found, he
It will only prevent people from doing new installs, allready installed
orphaned packages will still be there. So I con't see what's wrong
with keeping them. But I don't see anything clearly wrong with removing
them either.
What do you exactly mean by supported? Do you mean branches associated
with a fedora core version that is not eol?
could update and publish new builds.
--
Pat
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
