#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. ----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------------+---------------------------- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Cl... defines the criteria to unretire packages in Fedora and in EPEL if the package is still active in Fedora. However there is now a request to unretire a package that is also retired in all branches for more than two weeks (at least in pkgdb): https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel- devel/2014-September/010212.html
Therefore the question is, whether a re-review is required. IMHO it does not make much sense for EPEL, since there should be no guideline changes that require adjusting the EPEL SPEC files. Nevertheless, I would like to get a consensus on this.
Excerpts from Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux's message of 2014-10-01 07:45:38 +0200:
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. ----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Keywords: | ----------------------------+---------------------------- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Cl... defines the criteria to unretire packages in Fedora and in EPEL if the package is still active in Fedora. However there is now a request to unretire a package that is also retired in all branches for more than two weeks (at least in pkgdb): https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel- devel/2014-September/010212.html
Therefore the question is, whether a re-review is required. IMHO it does not make much sense for EPEL, since there should be no guideline changes that require adjusting the EPEL SPEC files. Nevertheless, I would like to get a consensus on this.
It's definitely needed I would say for this particular case. I think the EPEL maintainers had no idea the pkg orphaning in fedora was going to lead the a complete retirement in all branches. I'm kind of amazed this has never (obviously) happened before. (I'm interested in classadds.)
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by smooge):
I agree that reviews for such things do not make sense for EPEL. If we have them, I wonder if there is an expedited way of doing so?
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by smooge):
Update to ticket. We did not have a full body of committee members on 2014-10-03 meeting so are going to put this to the next meeting.
Second note. We are going to look at reviewing xerces-c using old method so that broken deps can be dealt with.
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by smooge):
Agreed by bstinson, Evolution, smooge, nirik
a) smooge volunteers to be a reviewer who will do reviews of needed packages on Friday afternoons after I have been retrained. b) We have a bug-killing day once a month where CentOS packagers help c) We expect all packages that have been removed from the collection over 14 days to be re-reviewed. [This is to match upstream FESCO policy]
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: task | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Resolution: fixed | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------- Changes (by smooge):
* resolution: => fixed * type: defect => task * status: new => closed
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: task | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Resolution: fixed | Keywords: -----------------------------+----------------------------
Comment (by till):
Replying to [comment:3 smooge]:
Agreed by bstinson, Evolution, smooge, nirik
a) smooge volunteers to be a reviewer who will do reviews of needed
packages on Friday afternoons after I have been retrained.
b) We have a bug-killing day once a month where CentOS packagers help c) We expect all packages that have been removed from the collection
over 14 days to be re-reviewed. [This is to match upstream FESCO policy]
Is this now documented somewhere? Is there someone to coordinate the bug- killing day? I guess there should be a wiki page about the bug-killing day some planning with announcements about when it will be.
And for others, that might be interested, the relevant meeting log is here: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/epel/2014-10-31/epel.2014-10-31-20.01.html
#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -----------------------------+---------------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: epel-wranglers Type: task | Status: reopened Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem | Version: Resolution: | Keywords: -----------------------------+---------------------------- Changes (by till):
* resolution: fixed => * status: closed => reopened
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
EPEL -
Steve Traylen