FYI. See below e-mail. There may be others in the list that I'm unaware of. Ibiam, we should probably get you set up as a maintainer for the sugar packages listed below:
Here's a curated list of packages that are/may be relevant to us/SoaS: rpms/sugar-analyze is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users rpms/sugar-analyze is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pbrobinson, tuxbrewr, callkalpa rpms/sugar-help is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users rpms/sugar-help is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pbrobinson, callkalpa rpms/sugar-presence-service is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pbrobinson, tomeu rpms/webkitgtk is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users rpms/webkitgtk is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pwalter, kevin, tpopela, huzaifas, mso rpms/webkitgtk3 is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users rpms/webkitgtk3 is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': phatina, mclasen, pwalter, tpopela 'groups': @gnome-sig rpms/webkitgtk4 is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users rpms/webkitgtk4 is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': tpopela, kalev, catanzaro 'groups': @gnome-sig > *From:* Pierre-Yves Chibon <[email protected]> > *Date:* May 11, 2020 at 11:49 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Retired packages with maintainers > Good Morning Everyone, > > A little while ago we have received the request on the infra issue tracker to > remove all maintainers of retired packages [1]. > > So today I decided to look at what this would look like and wrote a script > that > queries PDC for the list of all branches on all projects [2], gather from it a > list of all the packages that are retired on all their branches (so all > branches > are ``active=false``). > For each of these retired project, it queries dist-git to find out if they > still > have maintainers in addition to the ``orphan`` user. > > The outcome of this script can be found there: > > https://pingou.fedorapeople.org/retired_packages_with_maintainers.log > > > Some stats about this: > - 881 RPM packages are retired and still have maintainers (out of 4322 retired > RPMs). > - 662 of them are not orphaned > - 42 modules are retired and still have maintainers (out of 42 retired > modules). > - all of them are not orphaned > - 2 containers are retired and still have maintainers (out of 3 retired > containers). > - all of them are not orphaned > > Which brings a couple of questions: > - Do we have a documented way to mark modules as orphaned or retired? > - Should we orphan all the RPM packages that are retired but not orphaned? > > > Finally, does everyone agree about the original request: "remove all > maintainers > of retired packages"? Or should we bring this to FESCo? > > > Thanks for your inputs, > > Pierre > > > [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8600 > [2] https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/extras/active_branches.json (8+Mb file) > _______________________________________________ > devel-announce mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
_______________________________________________ SoaS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
