On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:12 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > The most important things in that whole sequence are the last two. > Clearly, dropping the package impacted Fedora users negatively. And > there was community interest in maintaining the package, so it's > plausible that had it been given a fair process, it wouldn't have been > dropped. Note that this is a result of the mass rebuild effort really. Not the orphan process. > > I believe the process for orphaning packages needs to address those. I > propose this: > > 1. Clearly after davidz replied to the first mail and the "request for > new owners" was dropped, then proceeded to do nothing, ANOTHER request > should have been initiated and allowed to go through to the end to allow > someone to have the chance to take the package before it was > "orphaned". This should be MANDATORY, in my opinion. Normally that happens. This particular instance happened to line up with a mass rebuild, which is why it got removed. Believe me, packages typically don't get yanked that quickly. > 2. Packages should never be dropped when they are orphaned until they > break. Breaking can be defined as causing the tree to fail repoclosure, > or somethin. Debian does something similar to this. The reasoning is > that simply because the package is not "maintained" does not mean the > package no longer serves a useful purpose to Fedora users. Clearly that > was the case for NetworkManager-vpnc. It's possible that it will be > *more* likely for someone to step up as maintainer if they realize there > is a package they use and nobody to update the package (people seem very > adamant about updated packages in extras). Dropping packages carte > blanche without at least some sort of individual review is plain wrong. See above. Also note that it just got pulled from the repo, not CVS. josh -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
