On 03/02/2017 01:43 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>
> wrote:
>> On 03/01/2017 09:23 PM, opensource(a)till.name wrote:
>>>
>>> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
>>> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know
>>> for
>>> sure
>>> that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper
>>> reason:
>>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
>>
>>
>> Is there a way to request a package owned by somebody else to be
>> retired?
>>
>> I am asking, because during the recent mass rebuilt, a larger number
>> packages have been rebuilt, whose maintainers are known to have left
>> Fedora
>> or apparently do not seem/do not seem to be able to care about their
>> packages.
>
> We have nothing in place other than to start the non-active maintainer
> process for all of them.
Unfortunately, this doesn't cover the case of
"IMHO package X should be removed, because I believe it's
obsolete/dead/outdated/insecure whatever, but I am not in position
and/or not knowledgeable on details to decide".
A real world example, I just encountered this situation, is this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424024
- Maintainer apparently is inactive in Fedora since 2015-06-22
(
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=819)
- No maintainer activity on package since 2013 (fc20).
All builds since fc20 were performed by releng/provenpackagers.
- Package F26FTBFSes
(
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11868)
Trigger for the F26FTBFS is -Werror, but the real issue underneath is
openssl-1.1.0 incompatibility. As a short term "work-around/easy-fix",
it is possible to resort to building against compat-openssl10, but in
longer terms, a port to openssl-1.1.0 would be required.
Would a tracking bug in RHBZ "nominees for package removal", which
would be assigned to FESCO be helpful?