On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:48:37 -0800, TK (Toshio) wrote:
The orphan packages are more varied. Originally, there were packages that
had been orphaned for many releases. I believe that now we're cleaning up
all orphaned packages at each release branching so this may not be as much
the case.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
And nevertheless, this thread is also about an orphan within F-17:
# yum install insight
[...]
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: insight-6.8.1-5.fc17.x86_64 (fedora)
Requires: iwidgets
The missing requirement had built
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this
package ? 2 days after orphaning? where?
In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new maintainer
wants I would be happy to review the package. Just submit it and cc me.
So it looks like we
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:43:23 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this
package ? 2 days after orphaning? where?
In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new
maintainer wants I
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:34:23 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
The reason insight is
orphaned in the first place is because of the indiscriminate retiring of its
dependency (see the mailing list thread announcing the orphaning), the
maintainer already stated he'll pick it up again if iwidgets is
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
So it looks like we failed to CC the public list on the discussions, darn…
This was discussed in a mail exchange with the Insight maintainer, krege
(the maintainer who picked up the rest of the itcl stack just before the
mass-retiring) and Bill
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
(More days have passed now, but that's just because we all lost a lot more
time discussing this than it would have taken an admin to
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 17:55:01 +0100,
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
(More days have passed now, but that's just
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Note that there already is a grace period. The policy used to be that a
review was needed after a package was orphaned.
No. The policy used to be that a review was needed if the package was 1.
orphaned AND 2. not updated for 3 months. And there was basically no
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 18:26:36 +0100,
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Half of the distro was affected by the indiscriminate mass orphaning done
this time. There was no way to know which packages would still have been
affected at the end.
Packages that were affected via rpm
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Packages that were affected via rpm dependencies were listed as part of
the announcement. I looked through the list for packages I cared about and
in one case let the asterisk packers know about a dependency of asterisk
that was on the list that I didn't want to maintain
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you
just want to
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 00:25 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Do we really need a policy saying Use common sense. In case of conflicts,
this supersedes all other policies.?
Absolutely not.
Why isn't this obvious? :-/
Because common sense is anything but common, and often not sense.
--
Adam
On 02/21/2012 06:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Do we really need a policy saying Use common sense. In case of conflicts,
this supersedes all other policies.?
It's often hard to distinguish common sense from equally common nonsense.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:39:10 +0100
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:25:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace
Since packages belonging to maintainer that have not changed their
password have been removed, I keep being notified about a broken
dependency in package insight, depending on iwidgets.
iwidgets has been deprecated and thus, as long as this situation
remains, insight will be broken.
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:23:53 +0100, PM (Patrick) wrote:
Since packages belonging to maintainer that have not changed their
password have been removed, I keep being notified about a broken
dependency in package insight, depending on iwidgets.
iwidgets has been deprecated and thus, as long
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
*You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ insight properly:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
*** This is not a normal end of life: this is an assassination ***
There's a maintainer (krege) who's
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 16:56:28 +0100,
Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch wrote:
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
*You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ insight properly:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
*** This is
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review.
This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which
were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now?
(iwidgets was one of them, but I've seen mails about
On 02/20/2012 11:39 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review.
This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which
were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now?
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review.
This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which
were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer
25 matches
Mail list logo
