rawhide perl-5.12 status

[Ralf Corsepius]

Hi,

AFAICT, these packages remain to be looked after

* BackupPC-3.1.0-14
wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)

* gnumeric-plugins-extras-1.10.0-1
Fails to build for reasons outside of Perl.

* perl-DBI-Dumper
Fails to build - Dead upstream.

* perl-Data-Alias
Fails to build - Dead upstream.

* perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
Fails to build - Dead upstream.

* perl-Test-AutoBuild
Fails to build - Dead upstream
(Upstream maintainer: Daniel P. Berrangé,
  Fedora maintainer: berrange(a)fp.org ?!?)

* virt-v2v:
Fails to build for reasons outside of Perl.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608389

* krazy2:
Fails to rebuild for reasons outside of Perl.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608649



How do we want to proceed with them?

Proposal:
* check if we can abandon these 4 perl-* packages.
AFAICT, none of these packages is required by Fedora.

* leave fixing BackupPC, gnumeric, krazy2 and virt-v2v to these
packages' maintainers and file BZ's against these packages.


Ralf

[Ralf Corsepius]

An update:

I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been 
tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target" rsp. 
F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks "F14Target").

On 06/28/2010 02:19 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  AFAICT, these packages remain to be looked after
>
>  * BackupPC-3.1.0-14
>  wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611009

>  * gnumeric-plugins-extras-1.10.0-1
>  Fails to build for reasons outside of Perl.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599888
FTBS, open since 2010-06-03, no response from maintainer.


>  * perl-DBI-Dumper
>  Fails to build - Dead upstream. 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555496
FTBS, open since 2010-01-14, no response from maintainer.


>  * perl-Data-Alias
>  Fails to build - Dead upstream. 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611014


>  * perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
>  Fails to build - Dead upstream. 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611015

>  * perl-Test-AutoBuild
>  Fails to build - Dead upstream
>  (Upstream maintainer: Daniel P. Berrangé,
>     Fedora maintainer: berrange(a)fp.org ?!?)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539046
FTBS, open since 2009-11-19, no response from maintainer.


>  * virt-v2v:
>  Fails to build for reasons outside of Perl.
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608389 
closed, issue resolved.


>  * krazy2:
>  Fails to rebuild for reasons outside of Perl.
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608649 
closed, issue resolved.


Ralf

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  An update:
>
>  I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been 
>  tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target" rsp. 
>  F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks "F14Target").
>     
Thank for filing these bugzillas.

Perl 5.12 was already accepted as a feature for F-14.

Regards,
Marcela

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > An update:
> >
> > I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been
> > tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target" rsp.
> > F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks "F14Target").
> >
>  Thank for filing these bugzillas. 
Welcome. ATM, these are still open:

> > * BackupPC-3.1.0-14
> > > wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611009 
Fedora maintainer and upstream
maintainer seem to have difficulties in 
understanding the issue and finding a solution. Iain has proposed a 
(IMHO) viable work-around, but no conclusions/results so far.

> > > * perl-DBI-Dumper
> > > Fails to build - Dead upstream.
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555496
>  FTBS, open since 2010-01-14, no response from maintainer. 
> > > * perl-Data-Alias
> > > Fails to build - Dead upstream.
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611014 
> > > * perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
> > > Fails to build - Dead upstream.
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611015 
> > > * perl-Test-AutoBuild
> > > Fails to build - Dead upstream
> > > (Upstream maintainer: Daniel P. Berrangé,
> > >    Fedora maintainer: berrange(a)fp.org ?!?)
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539046
>  FTBS, open since 2009-11-19, no response from maintainer. 
I'd propose to close and abandon the perl-* packages rather "soonish 
than later" and not to wait for "Fedora 14". I.e. I'd propose to set 
these package's maintainers a firm deadline (say, 1-2 weeks from now) 
and then to kill the then remaining perl-modules.

IMO, these package's maintainers and their upstreams knew about these 
packages issues for long enough and had sufficiently often been warned.

Ralf

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 07/07/2010 01:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> An update:
> >>
> >> I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been
> >> tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target" rsp.
> >> F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks "F14Target").
> >>
> > Thank for filing these bugzillas.
>
>  Welcome. ATM, these are still open:
>
> >> * BackupPC-3.1.0-14
> >> > wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611009
>  Fedora maintainer and upstream maintainer seem to have difficulties in
>  understanding the issue and finding a solution. Iain has proposed a
>  (IMHO) viable work-around, but no conclusions/results so far.
>
> >> > * perl-DBI-Dumper
> >> > Fails to build - Dead upstream.
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555496
> > FTBS, open since 2010-01-14, no response from maintainer.
>
> >> > * perl-Data-Alias
> >> > Fails to build - Dead upstream.
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611014
>
> >> > * perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
> >> > Fails to build - Dead upstream.
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611015
>
> >> > * perl-Test-AutoBuild
> >> > Fails to build - Dead upstream
> >> > (Upstream maintainer: Daniel P. Berrangé,
> >> >    Fedora maintainer: berrange(a)fp.org ?!?)
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539046
> > FTBS, open since 2009-11-19, no response from maintainer.
>
>  I'd propose to close and abandon the perl-* packages rather "soonish
>  than later" and not to wait for "Fedora 14". I.e. I'd propose to set
>  these package's maintainers a firm deadline (say, 1-2 weeks from now)
>  and then to kill the then remaining perl-modules.
>
>  IMO, these package's maintainers and their upstreams knew about these
>  packages issues for long enough and had sufficiently often been warned.
>
>  Ralf 
After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to
ask rel-eng for another
favour like "remove package, which is not mine". But surely ping
maintainers
to orphan/kill these packages in week or two would be nice.

I suppose packages, which won't be fixed, have: A/ dead upstream, B/
no-one is using them. Therefore I agree with removal. If they were
essential, they would be probably rewritten and re-added later.

Marcela

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  On 07/07/2010 01:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>     
> > On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >      
> >> On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>        
> >>> An update:
> >>>
> >>> I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been
> >>> tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target" rsp.
> >>> F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks "F14Target").
> >>>
> >>>          
> >> Thank for filing these bugzillas.
> >>        
> > Welcome. ATM, these are still open:
> >
> >      
> >>> * BackupPC-3.1.0-14
> >>>          
> >>>> wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)
> >>>>            
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611009
> >>        
> > Fedora maintainer and upstream maintainer seem to have difficulties in
> > understanding the issue and finding a solution. Iain has proposed a
> > (IMHO) viable work-around, but no conclusions/results so far.
> >
> >      
> >>>> * perl-DBI-Dumper
> >>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream.
> >>>>            
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555496
> >> FTBS, open since 2010-01-14, no response from maintainer.
> >>        
> >      
> >>>> * perl-Data-Alias
> >>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream.
> >>>>            
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611014
> >>        
> >      
> >>>> * perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
> >>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream.
> >>>>            
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611015
> >>        
> >      
> >>>> * perl-Test-AutoBuild
> >>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream
> >>>> (Upstream maintainer: Daniel P. Berrangé,
> >>>>     Fedora maintainer: berrange(a)fp.org ?!?)
> >>>>            
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539046
> >> FTBS, open since 2009-11-19, no response from maintainer.
> >>        
> > I'd propose to close and abandon the perl-* packages rather "soonish
> > than later" and not to wait for "Fedora 14". I.e. I'd propose to
> set
> > these package's maintainers a firm deadline (say, 1-2 weeks from now)
> > and then to kill the then remaining perl-modules.
> >
> > IMO, these package's maintainers and their upstreams knew about these
> > packages issues for long enough and had sufficiently often been warned.
> >
> > Ralf
> >      
>  After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to
>  ask rel-eng for another
>  favour like "remove package, which is not mine". But surely ping
>  maintainers
>  to orphan/kill these packages in week or two would be nice.
>      
They all are being pinged daily - All of these packages are included 
inside of the broken deps reports.

>  I suppose packages, which won't be fixed, have: A/ dead upstream,
> B/
>  no-one is using them. Therefore I agree with removal. 
Well, these packages all
carry broken deps and are uninstallable in rawhide.

I.e. unless they can be fixed, it's only a matter of whether _we_ kill 
them or whether rel-eng/FTBS will kill them later.

>  If they were
>  essential, they would be probably rewritten and re-added later.
>      
As I wrote earlier, I tried to check whether they are used by Fedora, 
but unless I have missed something, I haven't found any such case.

Ralf

[Iain Arnell]

2010/7/7 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt;:
>  On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to
> > ask rel-eng for another
> > favour like "remove package, which is not mine". But surely ping
> > maintainers
> > to orphan/kill these packages in week or two would be nice.
> >
>  They all are being pinged daily - All of these packages are included
>  inside of the broken deps reports.
>
> > I suppose packages, which won't be fixed, have: A/ dead upstream, B/
> > no-one is using them. Therefore I agree with removal.
>  Well, these packages all carry broken deps and are uninstallable in rawhide.
>
>  I.e. unless they can be fixed, it's only a matter of whether _we_ kill
>  them or whether rel-eng/FTBS will kill them later. 
But do we have the authority (either individually, or collectively as
the SIG) to arbitrarily kill off broken packages? I suspect it may be
necessary to initiate the nonresponsive maintainer process.

-- 
Iain.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 07/08/2010 05:05 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
>  2010/7/7 Ralf Corsepius<rc040203(a)freenet.de>:
> > On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >> After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to
> >> ask rel-eng for another
> >> favour like "remove package, which is not mine". But surely ping
> >> maintainers
> >> to orphan/kill these packages in week or two would be nice.
> >>
> > They all are being pinged daily - All of these packages are included
> > inside of the broken deps reports.
> >
> >> I suppose packages, which won't be fixed, have: A/ dead upstream, B/
> >> no-one is using them. Therefore I agree with removal.
> > Well, these packages all carry broken deps and are uninstallable in rawhide.
> >
> > I.e. unless they can be fixed, it's only a matter of whether _we_ kill
> > them or whether rel-eng/FTBS will kill them later.
>
>  But do we have the authority (either individually, or collectively as
>  the SIG) to arbitrarily kill off broken packages? 
IMO, yes. What FTBS or rel-eng
would have to do later in the release 
cycle is not any different what we would have to do.

>  I suspect it may be
>  necessary to initiate the nonresponsive maintainer process. 
Good question.

IMO, we will either have to go through:
a) 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

b) Or simply apply
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife

FTBS/rel-eng will certainly apply b), and I don't see much reasons for 
not applying b) either.


BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:

perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange

I haven't seen a trace of Steve for several months, but Chris and Daniel 
are still around in Fedora. No idea, why they prefer not to respond on 
these cases.

I'd really prefer them to handle their package's issues themselves. 
Unfortunately, this so far hasn't happened.

Ralf

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 07/08/2010 06:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  b) Or simply apply
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife
>
>  FTBS/rel-eng will certainly apply b), and I don't see much reasons for 
>  not applying b) either.
>
>
>     
I'm for b/ too. If rel-eng won't be happy, he can always ask FESCO.
>  BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
>
>  perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
>  perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
>  perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
>  perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange
>
>  I haven't seen a trace of Steve for several months, but Chris and Daniel 
>  are still around in Fedora. No idea, why they prefer not to respond on 
>  these cases.
>     
Steven wrote week ago that he's quite busy. I suppose in summer
will be people on vacations, so I'd rather don't jump to a/ at all.

Marcela

[Petr Pisar]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 10:13:35AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  On 07/08/2010 06:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  > BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
>  >
>  > perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
>  > perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
>  > perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
>  > perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange
>  >
>  > I haven't seen a trace of Steve for several months, but Chris and Daniel 
>  > are still around in Fedora. No idea, why they prefer not to respond on 
>  > these cases.
>  >   
>  Steven wrote week ago that he's quite busy. I suppose in summer
>  will be people on vacations, so I'd rather don't jump to a/ at all.
>   
I've contacted Chris on 2010-06-26 too regarding perl-Data-Alias, and he
replied he looked into it in one week.

-- Petr

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 07/08/2010 10:13 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
>  >
>  > perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
>  > perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
>  > perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
>  > perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange
>     
The ticket for rel-eng was created:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3882

Marcela

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 07/13/2010 10:33 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  On 07/08/2010 10:13 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
> >>
> >> perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
> >> perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
> >> perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
> >> perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange
> >
>  The ticket for rel-eng was created:
>  https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3882 
Thank you. Unfortunately, some well-known rel-eng deity immediately 
closed it.


Ralf

[Iain Arnell]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt; wrote:
>  On 07/13/2010 10:33 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> > On 07/08/2010 10:13 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >> BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
> >>>
> >>> perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
> >>> perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
> >>> perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
> >>> perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange
> >>
> > The ticket for rel-eng was created:
> > https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3882
>
>  Thank you. Unfortunately, some well-known rel-eng deity immediately
>  closed it. 
Still no response from any of these. I've filed non-responsive maintainer bugs:

Chris - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614980
Daniel - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614981
Steve - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614982

-- 
Iain.

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 07:11:20PM +0200, Iain Arnell wrote:
>  On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Ralf Corsepius
> <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt; wrote:
>  > On 07/13/2010 10:33 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  >> On 07/08/2010 10:13 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>  >>> BTW: We are talking about 4 packages, involving these 3 maintainers:
>  >>>>
>  >>>> perl-DBI-Dumper: Chris Weyl
>  >>>> perl-Data-Alias: Chris Weyl
>  >>>> perl-Pugs-Compiler: Steven Pritchard.
>  >>>> perl-Test-AutoBuild: Daniel Berrange
>  >>>
>  >> The ticket for rel-eng was created:
>  >> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3882
>  >
>  > Thank you. Unfortunately, some well-known rel-eng deity immediately
>  > closed it.
>  
>  Still no response from any of these. I've filed non-responsive maintainer bugs:
>  
>  Daniel - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614981 
If anyone ever bothered to email me directly I could have responded.
Automated spam emails are all to easy to miss amongst the many thousands
received each week & are low priority, compared to a direct request
from a real human.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London    -o-   http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org        -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505  -o-   F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

[Iain Arnell]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 07:11:20PM +0200, Iain Arnell wrote:
> > Still no response from any of these. I've filed non-responsive maintainer bugs:
> >
> > Daniel - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=614981
>
>  If anyone ever bothered to email me directly I could have responded.
>  Automated spam emails are all to easy to miss amongst the many thousands
>  received each week & are low priority, compared to a direct request
>  from a real human. 
Apologies for waving the big stick. I know that Petr had contacted
Chris and just assumed that he'd pinged you too. Or that at least some
of the bug/buildsys/perlsig spam got through.

But on the plus side, it did get a quick response. Thank you.


-- 
Iain.