On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:54:52 +0100 rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx (Ralf Corsepius) wrote: > 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. ok > > 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. Yeah, what a mess. ;( > > Should a owners.list entry be made for it anyhow? > Hmm, I am not sure about it. I guess not since it's removed. > > 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. Right. Makes sense. ok, later tonight I am going to add dead.package to all the libopts branches, and request libopts binary rpms be removed from all the repos (yes, we are shipping libopts right now) > Ralf Thanks for the excellent info Ralf. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
