libglfw orphaned, but it has dependancies still in fedora ? (fwd)

[Paul Wouters]

I was asked to look into this. libglfw is retired, but has dependancies
that need it. It was added to Fedora on Nov 16, and retured by notting
on July 25th, but it does not say why.

Can this package be revived? If needed, I'll take it on. This is
apparently the next generation glut, and used by people, and other
fedora packages as the logs below here show,

Thanks,

Paul


colah-notebook~$ sudo yum install libglfw
[sudo] password for colah:
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
No package libglfw available.
Error: Nothing to do
colah-notebook~$ sudo yum install taoframework-glfw taoframework-glfw-devel
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package taoframework-glfw.i686 0:2.1.0-2.fc15 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: mono(mscorlib) = 2.0.0.0 for package:
taoframework-glfw-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686
--> Processing Dependency: libglfw for package:
taoframework-glfw-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686
---> Package taoframework-glfw-devel.i686 0:2.1.0-2.fc15 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: pkgconfig(tao-opengl-2.1) for package:
taoframework-glfw-devel-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686
--> Running transaction check
---> Package mono-core.i686 0:2.10.5-1.fc16 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libgdiplus for package: mono-core-2.10.5-1.fc16.i686
---> Package taoframework-glfw.i686 0:2.1.0-2.fc15 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libglfw for package:
taoframework-glfw-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686
---> Package taoframework-opengl-devel.i686 0:2.1.0-2.fc15 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: taoframework-opengl = 2.1.0-2.fc15 for
package: taoframework-opengl-devel-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libgdiplus.i686 0:2.10-2.fc16 will be installed
---> Package taoframework-glfw.i686 0:2.1.0-2.fc15 will be installed
--> Processing Dependency: libglfw for package:
taoframework-glfw-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686
---> Package taoframework-opengl.i686 0:2.1.0-2.fc15 will be installed
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: taoframework-glfw-2.1.0-2.fc15.i686 (fedora)
             Requires: libglfw
   You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
   You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

[Peter Robinson]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Paul Wouters <paul(a)cypherpunks.ca&gt; wrote:
>  I was asked to look into this. libglfw is retired, but has dependancies
>  that need it. It was added to Fedora on Nov 16, and retured by notting
>  on July 25th, but it does not say why.
>
>  Can this package be revived? If needed, I'll take it on. This is
>  apparently the next generation glut, and used by people, and other
>  fedora packages as the logs below here show, 
Yes it can be revived. The process is basically the same as a new
package review process except you reference the original review as
well.

Peter

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Peter Robinson wrote:

> > I was asked to look into this. libglfw is retired, but has
> dependancies
> > that need it. It was added to Fedora on Nov 16, and retured by notting
> > on July 25th, but it does not say why.
> >
> > Can this package be revived? If needed, I'll take it on. This is
> > apparently the next generation glut, and used by people, and other
> > fedora packages as the logs below here show,
>
>  Yes it can be revived. The process is basically the same as a new
>  package review process except you reference the original review as
>  well. 
Well, I understand it can be revived. I guess what I was really asking
was why was it orphaned? There might have been a legal reason or
something I'm not aware of.

I located the original review at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469972

Currently filed bugs against it:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674380
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754658

Paul (Johnson): Did you want to revive/maintain the package? Or should I
or Chrisopher Olah take it over?

Paul

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:35:47 -0500 (EST)
Paul Wouters <pwouters(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Well, I understand it can be revived. I guess what I was really
> asking
>  was why was it orphaned? There might have been a legal reason or
>  something I'm not aware of. 
pfj's account was marked inactive (proibibly by not changing
password/ssh key recently). His packages were then marked orphaned and
then later (a month or so) depreciated. 

...snip...

>  Paul (Johnson): Did you want to revive/maintain the package? Or
>  should I or Chrisopher Olah take it over? 
He would need to change his pass/upload a new ssh to reactivate his
account. 

kevin