potentially unmaintained packages

[Paul W. Frields]

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