On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 13:43 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Ralf Corsepius schrieb: > > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 17:42 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> Michael Schwendt schrieb: > >>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:48:31 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote: > >>> [...] > >>>> There needs to be a way to > >>>> blacklist these packages from showing up in the report or else send > >>>> them to another interested party such as fedora-legacy > >>> I've suggested a black-list several times before without clear > >>> feedback. Black-listing packages is like hiding something under the > >>> carpet. > >> Agreed, until now I don't see any good reason for a blacklist. > > How about FESCO implementing some rules on "taking consequences" from > > EVR issues in FE not being taken care about? > > Sounds like a good idea -- but you don't have to wait for FESCo -- the > Committee has a lot of stuff to do already and the members to the work > in their spare time, too. > > Someone inside or outside of FESCo that cares about this particular > problem could just work out a detailed plan what to do. Then FESCo will > probably simply ACK it and say "thanks for your help. > > > E.g. "broken deps > 4weeks", and the package will be automatically > > orphaned plus the maintainer's account will be withdrawn/canceled? > > I agree with Gianluca: That's a bit overkill. Why would that be overkill? Broken EVRs break upgrades. Something I consider to be "serious packaging bugs". I consider maintainers not being able to address a severe issue within "a reasonable timeframe" as "these persons not doing there job". I don't see what would be wrong in confronting them with sanctions. Mistakes happens, oversights happen, but not at least _trying_ to address them without any doubt is beyond reason and let's appear these folks in a "special light". > But yes, something in that direction. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
