potentially unmaintained packages

[Jon Ciesla]

On 04/14/2010 05:20 AM, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 14.04.2010 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> Why would it need to be rebuilt manually?
>
> You don't need to. If a package is working perfectly fine and no update
> is available there's no need to rebuild.
>
>>> "Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you
>>> should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained
>>> consider retiring it."
>>
>> It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I
>> rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
>> issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?
>
> Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a
> need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the
> list not having any implications.
> For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that
> I took over rubyripper some time ago.
> I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can
> just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself
> directly ;)
>
> So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't
> required to use this service.

I agree, and thought Seth made his point well.  I typically consider the 
set of things in Fedora I need to worry about to be the set of bugs 
assigned to me, plus the ones I've files, plus any FTFFS or broken deps 
I'm aware of.  If something sits there for years, no bugs, no need for 
rebuild, and no new releases, and it works, then I'm happy.  Very happy 
in fact.

As an added bonus, I took some amusement from the sheer size of my part 
of his list.

-J

> Thanks Seth.
>
> Felix
>
>
>