On 25. 01. 22 15:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the
following
>> buzgillas about packages that don't install:
>>
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&f1=blocke...
>>
>> They were set to ASSIGNED by their maintainers but since then, they still
don't
>> install on Fedora 34, Fedora 35 or Fedora 36.
>>
>> I see no point in keeping such packages in the repositories, yet the policy
>> does not currently allow to do anything other than keep them.
>>
>> Should I take some steps, or do we keep building and shipping the broken
>> packages forever?
>
> Wouldn't this fit under the non-responsive maintainer policy?
Well, the obvious problem with that approach is that the packagers are
otherwise active (at least the majority of them):
Fabian Affolter (5 bugzillas)
Dan Horák (4 bugzillas)
Peter Robinson, Rust SIG, Mukundan Ragavan...
And the non-responsive maintainer policy kinda assumes the maintainers are
generally not interested / responsive.
In that case I would suggest that we draft a policy comparable to how we
handle FTBFS packages, as non-installable packages are about as useful
as those that cannot be build (at least for the end user they might be
actually more harmful).
Cheers,
Dan