Josh Boyer wrote:
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.
Call the process whatever you want, the package dropped because of
inactivity of the maintainer (how is this different from orphaned?)
without a fair chance for anyone to step up. If it's not the orphan
process, I can call it the drop package process or whatever.
In either case, something is broken. If a package doesn't get a fair
chance to be picked up before dropped, I'd say that's broken. Or, if an
auxiliary process such as mass rebuilding gets free reign to ignore
other processes, then that is broken.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
