potentially unmaintained packages

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> wrote:
> I agree, and thought Seth made his point well.  I typically consider the
> set of things in Fedora I need to worry about to be the set of bugs
> assigned to me, plus the ones I've files, plus any FTFFS or broken deps
> I'm aware of.  If something sits there for years, no bugs, no need for
> rebuild, and no new releases, and it works, then I'm happy.  Very happy
> in fact.

I'm not actually sure that the packages on that list that I am
responsible for actually do work.. nor do I have any evidence that
anyone uses these packages on such a regular basis that they would be
tested in the run up to a release.  Hell man, matplotlib was runtime
broken for over a month and it wasn't until Beta that someone actually
filed a ticket about it (after I discovered the problem myself) and I
expect matplotlib more widely used than something like g3data.  Unless
I start getting some affirmative feedback through some sort of phone
home process, similar to popcon, that my packages are actually
installed and used I have to assume that noone is using them on a
regular basis and noone is testing prior to release.

So in that sense Seth's list is a reminder to me to test those
packages for myself on the Beta (now that I have a Beta install up and
running...even though there was an intel graphics problem during
install...but that's another story)

-jef"I have a very very long rant que'd up about falling back from a
graphical install to a text install that is so minimal that it doesnt
even include lspci. I've no problem with a text based install that is
very minimal for people who deliberately choose to use it... but I
have a really big problem failing over to it from a graphical install
and expecting people who don't know what they are doing to know wtf is
going on after they reboot the system"spaleta