On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 11:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Nevertheless, what is the recommended procedure to claim the other
branches? Is it a ticket to FESCo trac or a CVS Admin procedure
request?
Honestly that's a good question. I'd start with a FESCo ticket and see
what happens?
--
Jesse
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:12 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The list of packages you announced that are going to be orphaned and
the list of packages that were orphaned are not the same.
recordmydesktop was on the
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:17PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:48:25 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Indeed. I
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:39:38AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:43:40 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:42:58PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:52:12 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The list
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
After some talk on IRC yesterday, skvidal is the person doing work on this
at them moment. His plan is to implement tests that try to tell if
individual packages are maintained and get people to orphan those that are
not. Here's his general plan
2010/1/18 Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org:
1. extraordinarily stable
[...]
in ANY of those cases I'd want to start thinking about nuking the pkg from
fedora.
Are you serious?
- Thomas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/1/18 Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org:
1. extraordinarily stable
[...]
in ANY of those cases I'd want to start thinking about nuking the pkg from
fedora.
Are you serious?
As a heart attack.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:48:25 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
Have you tried sending them
Matt Domsch (matt_dom...@dell.com) said:
With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
worse if it turns out that packages which do build are unmaintained
nevertheless, with the same symptoms in bugzilla
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
for packages that appear via some criteria (have not been built, have
not been committed to, have lots of bugs
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
for packages that appear via some criteria
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
for
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:25 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
for packages that appear via some criteria (have not
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is
opened not closed in the bugzilla on the
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 14:04 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 14:04 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
touched by the
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:04:14PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
I disagree about the bug being open. A lack of filed bugs could mean that
no one CARES about the pkg at all. And if we have pkgs which are not being
maintained AND no one cares enough to file a bug about then either they
are:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:32:10PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
I have another radical idea - we could whitelist all sorts of things which
are unchanging and yet used. We could act like reasonable folks and
realize that one extra bug report A YEAR that you have to close as 'fixed'
is really
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
it, otherwise he would just drop it. If
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
it, otherwise he would just drop it. If
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:55:36PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
Yes, I believe the expression you're looking for is:
Perfect is the enemy of the good
What is being suggested is not perfect. It is, however, good.
Here we disagree. As I explained I see little use in it, since there are
other
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Often maintainers don't realize they have some of these packages, or the
maintainers have left the project.
Do maintainer really often forget, that they own a certain package?
Ok, maybe if they are forced to do this from Red Hat, I do not know. But
I
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 16:22 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
I've not heard any other solutions which aren't oh just let it be.
It might have been missed in the passing but:
We have to reset our bugzilla password frequently
We have to renew our Koji cert once a year
We should be able to detect when
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:08 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:39 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
It might have been missed in the passing but:
We have to reset our bugzilla password frequently
We have to renew our Koji cert once a year
We should be able to detect when either of those goes wrong, probably
easiest to do the koji
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:55 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually
uses
it, otherwise he would just drop it. If
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:39:50AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
Have you tried sending them an email?
If not, I can.
No, please go ahead.
I took the liberty
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
The following 30 packages, with respective
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
perl-SVN-Simple iburrell
There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
submitted in the upstream bugtracker iirc 7 days ago. But I also
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say
MAINTAINED. An automated process would generate such tickets,
blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintainer to close
the ticket to remain the owner of the package. Tickets
On 01/16/2010 03:50 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
worse if it turns out that packages which do build are
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:46:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say
MAINTAINED. An automated process would generate such tickets,
blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintainer to
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:13:29 +0100, Ralf wrote:
On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
would be marked orphan.
Well, if FESCO thinks this was a good idea ... I think you guys stopped
half-ways: You better should
Hi,
On 01/16/2010 12:14 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not fail
to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that fail to
build?
Because this isn't a fully proper
Hi,
On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
are the oldest non-building packages in the
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:59:56 +0100, Hans wrote:
On 01/15/2010 09:01 PM, Till Maas wrote:
What about the other packages of these maintainers? E.g. in the
recordmydesktop case, there were four bugs open with working patches
attached for that package. I did not yet check the other packages,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for people,
not for packages. The people may still be active (and even known to be
active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which are assigned to
them would
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
unifdef-1.171-8.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511553
i fixed this, but i think we should still remove it because it has been
superceded by the superior sunifdef.
regards, kyle
--
devel mailing list
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 08:50:14AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
worse if it turns out that
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:12:03AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
widelands-0-0.13.Build13.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511430
xpilot-ng-4.7.2-16.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511717
Ah, how nice, these 2 are orphaned now and I
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:39:54 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
Have you tried sending them an email?
If not, I can.
No, please go ahead.
I took the liberty right after I posted.
(Hopefully Ian doesn't mind me passing this
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:08:30 +0100
Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't see who the orphaning without following proper procedure is
appropriate at all. Simply blocking the ones which FTBFS bugs were not
fixed from F-13 inclusion would have been the appropriate response
(as
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:13:32 +0100
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for
people, not for packages. The people may still be active (and even
known to be active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which
are assigned to
On Sat, 2010-01-16 at 10:59 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
You know we have a procedure for this it is called the awol maintainer
procedure and it would be nice if FESco would follow its on procedures
here.
Ah well I guess the rules don't apply to those who make them :(
The non-responsive
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:47:35AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Bad idea (says someone who owns 150 packages). I don't feel like
getting 150 bugzilla mails and having to (mass) close them each
release.
OK; add a fedora-packager script that mass-closes bugs; or use the
bugzilla web interface to
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:10:17PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:47:35AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Bad idea (says someone who owns 150 packages). I don't feel like
getting 150 bugzilla mails and having to (mass) close them each
release.
OK; add a fedora-packager
2010/1/15 Mary Ellen Foster mefos...@gmail.com:
2010/1/15 Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com:
Removing geronimo-specs removes these:
geronimo-specs-compat-0:1.0-2.M2.fc10.x86_64
Eek! I think geronimo-specs-compat is (transitively) needed by a bunch
of other Java packages including maven; on my
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:23:44AM +, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
2010/1/15 Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com:
Removing geronimo-specs removes these:
geronimo-specs-compat-0:1.0-2.M2.fc10.x86_64
Eek! I think geronimo-specs-compat is (transitively) needed by a bunch
of other Java packages
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 07:27 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
-
Removing gmfsk also removes:
This one is now fixed.
-
Removing gnome-scan also removes:
There's a patch logged against this now FWIW
Removing Io-language also removes:
This one is now fixed.
2010/1/15 Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com:
OK, re-run, removing the three packages noted as fixed overnight.
-
Removing geronimo-specs also removes:
[ lots of stuff! ]
Almost all of these are due to the dependency chain jms (virtual
provide) - avalon-logkit - velocity - (all
2010/1/15 Matt Domsch matt_dom...@dell.com:
ohm-0.1.1-9.39.20091215git.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539200
This should be a dead package, upstream is no longer being maintained.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
are the oldest non-building packages in the distribution, everything
else (over 8800) managed
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:48 +, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 07:27 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
-
Removing gmfsk also removes:
This one is now fixed.
-
Removing gnome-scan also removes:
There's a patch logged against this now FWIW
On 01/15/2010 01:00 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
perl-AnyEvent-XMPP-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511749
This one is awaiting an upstream fix (probably coming with 0.6).
perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:13:41 -0600, Matt wrote:
Folks, while I appreciate you fixing these packages so they build
again, _please_ do take the time to consider if they are unloved
enough to be orphaned and dropped anyhow. If it's a leaf node in the
dependency tree, dead upstream, and
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:17 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
Any package still orphaned as of the Feb 16 F13 Alpha freeze will be
dropped per standard operating procedure.
I might attempt to drop them a bit earlier than alpha freeze, so that if
there is unexpected fallout we have time to fix it
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
are the oldest non-building
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
since the Fedora 11 time frame, and
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:00 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
xqilla-2.1.3-0.6.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511425
This one also has a major policy breach issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555836
(it ships its own copy of xerces)
--
Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 20:04 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:17:21 +0100, Milos wrote:
On 15.1.2010 07:00, Matt Domsch wrote:
synce-kde-0.9.1-4.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539195
Synce-kde should be EOL'd already a long time (it
On 15/01/10 09:04 AM, Mary Ellen Foster wrote:
2010/1/15 Matt Domschmatt_dom...@dell.com:
OK, re-run, removing the three packages noted as fixed overnight.
-
Removing geronimo-specs also removes:
[ lots of stuff! ]
Almost all of these are due to the dependency chain jms
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:13:29AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
Unfortunately, this has proven to be hard/impossible so far.
perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
I intended to take this
The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
are the oldest non-building packages in the distribution, everything
else (over 8800) managed to build for Fedora 12 or newer already.
63 matches
Mail list logo
