On 15. 02. 19 14:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
- Fabio Valentini:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer fweimer@redhat.com wrote:
- Fabio Valentini:
In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this yet.
I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be specific to modular content.
That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better name, though.
This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages ("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome, or until they are abandoned.
It's still not clear to me what this group is supposed to do.
Does the group produce modular or non-modular content? What would qualify a package for maintenance by this group?
Why don't we need this in a non-module context? Why do modules require such a group?
This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module packages, and third parties building on top of Fedora can't use modules at all either. Since module developers don't care about these users, this SIG will.
How can I help solve this(*) on FESCo level?
I think this is tearing Fedora apart. However we cannot forbid packagers to orphan their packages.
(*) that module developers don't care about these users