Orphaned packages not! (splat, gpsman, nec2c)

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Fri Jun 6 14:41:07 UTC 2008


On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:42AM -0500, Steve Conklin wrote:
>
> It was an accident, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone over this,
> but I'm not happy that the package ownership process (or lack of one)
> allowed this to happen so easily.

The policy here is the non responsive maintainer policy. Otherwise the
primary maintainer should not be changed. However the redhat folks don't 
seem to follow this procedure and instead it seems that change in package
maintainers owned by people @redhat is done by other procedures,
including with more sharing of responsibility over package among groups.

I am not sure that there is something that can be done in fedora about 
that issue. Maybe the exception should be written down explicitly such 
that people like you who is at redhat and in the community knows who 
to contact @redhat to follow the fedora rules.

Also maybe I am mistaken and there are no specific rules for redhat
people, only remnants from the past (like the many agg co-maintainer I
have who are certainly not interested).

--
Pat




More information about the devel mailing list