Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Till Maas]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 
> > Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
> > common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
> > for packages that appear via some criteria (have not been built, have
> > not been committed to, have lots of bugs with no response, etc.), but
> > doing it for *every* package seems like overkill.
> >
> 
> Right - so maybe last check into devel branch since the last release of 
> the distro.
> 
> If we do that check before the alpha release that should let us track down 
> awol maintainers and unmaintained pkgs pretty easily, I think.

The majority of my packages does not get updated that often (15 from 21)
and there are also no bug reports unhandled for them.

I am not sure how the ratio is for others, but it does not seem to be
such a got criterion.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100118/063cc666/attachment.bin