potentially unmaintained packages
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Wed Apr 14 15:34:20 UTC 2010
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:20:05PM +0200, 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.
> Thanks Seth.
That's how I took it too -- My packages in that list that are similar,
slow moving packages. Except for one that I think I should take a
closer look at massively upgrading in Rawhide or orphaning.
So thanks from me, too.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
More information about the devel