On 3/30/19 7:54 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:20 AM John Florian
> On 3/29/19 2:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 29. 03. 19 v 19:47 John Florian napsal(a):
>>> I know it's not unusual to carry builds over from prior releases. My
>>> understanding is that happens because there was no mass rebuild.
>>> However, when I look at the F29 repo I see
>>> rubygem-puppet-lint-1.1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm. Was there really no mass
>>> rebuild between F23 and F29? This package is severely outdated --
>>> upstream has v2.3.6 and v1.1.0 dates back to 2014. It looks like a
>>> build hasn't succeeded in Koji since F23. I don't know why because
>>> don't see any build logs for any of these failures. I also was under
>>> the impression that FTBS packages like this get culled.
>>> Is my understanding buggy or did this leak through somehow?
>> You can see that all mass rebuilds failed:
>> And there are several FTBFS bugs reported (including closed due to EOL):
>> Looking at the logs from the oldest bug:
>> I guess the origin of the issues is that it does not yet use
>> %gem_install macro and the rubygems `--rdoc` option was deprecated
>> around F24 time.
> And it looks like the maintainer is MIA in all that time ... not a
> single response:
Looking at src.fp.org
, this is the only package that's associated with
So I think in this case you can safely initiate the "Nonresponsive
Maintainer" process ...
I wish I had the time to pursue this as I've been wanting to get more
involved in Fedora packaging (as opposed to the gobs of
private/corporate packaging I've been doing) for years. I finally got
around to getting sponsored and since then my life has become a complete
turmoil. Sadly, this looks just about my speed if I did have the time.
Nonetheless, shouldn't this have been culled for FBTFS?