Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 01/15/2010 09:01 PM, 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 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.
>>
>> At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
>> would be marked orphan.  I know several of these have been fixed by
>> provenpackagers already - you are welcome to un-orphan and maintain
>> them going forward, or the original package owner may choose to do so.
>
> 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, but
> in case a packager does not have the time anymore to maintain one
> package from this list, why do we assume that he has the time to
> maintain the others?
> So before the mass orphaning is done, it would be nice to do it in a way
> that allows to at least easily spot which maintainers owned the packages
> before the orphage, so non responsive maintainers can be found easier.
> Or tell all maintainers in question and orphan all their packages. But
> the current solution seems to be only half-baked.
>

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 :(

Regards,

Hans

> Regards
> Till
>