#6127: send direct e-mails to (co)maintainers of orphaned packages
-----------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: pnemade | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Milestone: Fedora 22 Beta | Component: epel
Resolution: fixed | Keywords:
Blocked By: | Blocking:
-----------------------------+-----------------------
Comment (by pnemade):
Replying to [comment:9 till]:
Replying to [comment:8 pnemade]:
> Again you are giving the same (for me it looks) unrelated reference of
January epel-devel email. Note you ran the script without checking what
got re-imported in epel5. I re-imported fontpackages because there were 2
reasons
In January I retired python26-distribute because nobody adopted it,
Recently I
mainly retired packages that had broken dependencies since then
or before then, i.e. packages that cannot be properly installed or built
again.
>
> 1) font packages was removed due to this
>
> 2)
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fonts-
bugs/2015-January/027474.html
>
> What Robert suggested there is the later thing as rpmdevetools itself
caused
the issues of removal of font packages. What I know is that your
script has wasted my time of re-importing the fontpackages. You should
first add more validations before running any such scripts and not to ask
package maintainers to provide patches.
There would be no need for this if you or whoever just adopted the
orphaned
packages.
That is why I am saying send individual personal emails (not the complete
report) that just shows what packages for that person will be removed and
what other packages he need to own.
> I don't know why you emphasize so much on removal of orphaned
packages.
It makes sure that nobody installs packages from EPEL that are not
really
maintained and might contain unhandled security issues, see for
example ticket:5963.
Okay. I got this why you remove the orphaned packages.
> May I know why there is no owner shown for fontpackages and devjavu-
fonts in
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-
devel/2015-March/010968.html ? That report referenced build fontpackages-
devel-1.44-1.el5.2.noarch which is completed by me, see
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=610973
I ran the script that created the report after I cleaned up broken
dependencies.
How will this help if you will directly remove the packages and then send
the report that some packages removed due to some other orphaned packages
and do not give sufficient time for people to consume that information? If
I would have notified personally with just the related information to me,
I could have taken rpmdevtools package.
> Re-importing packages is not a big issues but Dennis insisted re-
review of
such packages and then there will be no review or reviewer for
some time. You should also invest some time in re-reviewing such removed
packages. All this process is a big pain.
You do not need a re-review if it is unretired within two weeks.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#...
and you will find point 3 there saying "To unretire a EPEL branch if the
package is still in Fedora, no re-review is required." and still unretire
process asked me to re-review the package as it was more than 2 weeks.
Can you people decide on what should be the real policy wordings here and
follow that exactly?
--
Ticket URL: <
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6127#comment:10>
Fedora Release Engineering <
http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project