Michael Schwendt wrote:
Or alternatively if you had warned in advance you
were going to do it (and maybe even grepped for BR's, though I
appreciate this takes more of your time), I'm sure someone else with
deps on it would have picked it up, saving the need to take it out at
all. Just something to consider for the future. Thanks.
As I understand it, you just volunteered to help with getting rid of
orphans in the future.
Sure I will. I think there was a QA SIG discussed before; I don't recall
what the conclusion (if any) was. Yourself, Christian and others (Matt
D, THL...) have been immensely helpful in doing this kind of work and
related QA stuff; it should be more of a shared responsibility. I don't
mind helping, though I guess we need to co-ordinate so people don't
tread on each other's toes. Also, doing stuff like removing things from
repo (as opposed to disabling in CVS, though with stricter
implementation of ACLs that might change) does presumably require a
higher level of privilege.
The fact that there are orphans (not just in devel) for many weeks/months
without anyone taking care of them is reason to worry.
It is. Maybe a case of "everyone's job, nobody's job".
Dropping an rpm from the repo triggers a repoclosure mail to every packager
with dependencies on it. This is FE Development. Relax!
Indeed, it's not a problem. That's what devel is for. But if we can get
packages to be picked up *before* being removed, that's got to be a good
thing.
Here's the full list of orphans which have been removed from the devel
repo and disabled in CVS.
Thanks.
When you added to FE a new package with a dependency on an _orphaned_
package, that would have been the perfect opportunity to de-orphan the
package first.
Indeed, it would, and if I'd spotted it I certainly would have picked up
fltk. I should have checked and will do next time round.
Tim
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
