On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:40 PM Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Because nobody is communicating with upstream and fixing it there. In
> some cases it'll be met with a shrug (like changelogs). In many, it
> might actually result in upstream making a similar fix.
What is "upstream", though? Some repository the packager uses to hold
the spec files? The actual upstream project that's being packaged?
Some other distribution's package repository? Presumably the people
doing automated cleanups would need to know this information, somehow.
No, I said automated cleanups should skip such packages. If people
doing them were really interested, they could lookup the info in the
file or file a bug, or have their script file a bug because the
package was skipped.
And if an automated cleanup involves hundreds or thousands of
packages, is it realistic to have the person doing that cleanup look
up and contact various different upstreams manually for all of these?
Doesn't this make it harder, not easier, to do automated package
We have been telling people for a while now that they don't
their packages. Making it easier for people to maintain their packages
outside of dist-git and (effectively) ignore changes from
proven-packagers seems to take us in the opposite direction.
I disagree. "Ownership" within Fedora is one aspect we've tried to
address, but we're pretending that Fedora "owns" the code base which
is a falsity. There are many more people involved and in this
specific kind of situation, pretending there aren't is just odd.
If this is really something that's necessary, maybe it would be
to require someone's approval (FESCo? FPC?) to maintain a package
outside of Fedora dist-git. Then at least the number of such packages
could be hopefully kept low.
That's a thing that could be done, but I'm skeptical it will help much
without the other things.