On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 20:00 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > The libopts package has no owners.list entry. > It's files were cvs rm'ed a while back: > > revision 1.4 > date: 2006/11/02 21:21:57; author: pfj; state: dead; lines: +0 -0 > > Removing package - now part of autogen > libopts/Makefile libopts/import.log libopts/FC-5/Makefile > libopts/FC-5/branch libopts/FC-5/libopts.spec > libopts/FC-5/sources libopts/FC-6/Makefile libopts/FC-6/branch > libopts/FC-6/libopts.spec libopts/FC-6/sources > libopts/devel/Makefile libopts/devel/libopts.spec > libopts/devel/sources > > Of course since there is no bugzilla component and pfj doesn't seem to > be around, it's hard to know what is going on... > > unless someone tells me otherwise I am going to place a dead.package > file in libopts/FC-5/, libopts/FC-6, libopts/devel/ and mark it as > Retired and request it's removal from the repos. > (I will do this tomorrow) > > Did it really become a part of autogen on all those branches at the > same time? Well, it's a bit more complicated. libopts has always been part of autogen. Its upstream sources are part of autogen. However libopts also had been shipped as a separate standalone library package. IIRC, at some point in FE's history, pfj had submitted libopts and libopts managed to make it into FE. Later he submitted autogen, which pulled-in its own copy of libopts and therefore had conflicted with libopts. He then decided to drop the standalone libopts, and to provide it from inside of autogen. Also, neither autogen's upstream wanted to change autogen to use a separate libopts, nor did pfj want to modify autogen to using a standalone libopts instead of the bundled version. => At some point in history, we once had separate libopts packages, now we only have autogen and no libopts-devel nor virtual packages inside of autogen to "fake libopts packages" (!). I can't find this situation to be satisfactory and actually think this situation is messed up. But, AFAICT, nobody but autogen actually uses libopts, so this isn't much of a problem. > Should a owners.list entry be made for it anyhow? Hmm, I am not sure about it. IMO, libopts actually is a separate package (With its own version numbering), but in the way libopts currently is packaged, it only is an internal autogen library not of much use to the public. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
