Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Till Maas
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:45:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the dead.package file. It can say something like EPEL-only package. EPEL-only

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Ken Dreyer
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 08:45:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora branches if they were already created) properly retired including adding the

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.8.2015 v 19:48 Viktor Jancik napsal(a): Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. Is this desired? Here is the list: rubygem-amq-protocol This was never imported.

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-24 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 21.8.2015 v 19:48 Viktor Jancik napsal(a): Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. Is this desired? Here is the list: rubygem-amq-protocol Package was probably never

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Jan Chaloupka
Hi On 08/21/2015 07:48 PM, Viktor Jancik wrote: Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. Is this desired? Here is the list: askbot-plugin-authfas autoconf268 bwping Django14

Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Viktor Jancik
Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. Is this desired? Here is the list: askbot-plugin-authfas autoconf268 bwping Django14 drupal7-honeypot drupal7-xmlsitemap fetch-crl3 gnuplot44

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:48:44 -0400 (EDT), Viktor Jancik wrote: Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. Is this desired? Here is the list: [...] I came to the conclusion, that

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Kevin Kofler
Rex Dieter wrote: At least some of these are epel-only packages (examples below) dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently? EPEL-only packages should have their devel branch (and any other Fedora

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:02:41 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: dead.package I thought was only applicable to packages that existed in fedora, then were EOL'd. Should that case be handled differently? It prevents new branches from being created. Will there be more empty branches in the future, if the

Re: Package repositories missing both a spec file and a dead.package file

2015-08-21 Thread Rex Dieter
Viktor Jancik wrote: Using an automated script I found 65 repositories that neither have a spec file or a dead.package among Fedora package repositories on the master branch. At least some of these are epel-only packages (examples below) dead.package I thought was only applicable to