Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:58:54 +0100
Till Maas <opensource at till.name> wrote:

> But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not
> fail to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that
> fail to build?

There may be some cases of that. If so, the non responsive maintainer
procedure should be used on those maintainers. 

> > perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
> > perl-SVN-Simple iburrell
> 
> There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
> submitted in the upstream bugtracker iirc 7 days ago. But I also
> noticed that the -Mirror package was removed from debian.
> 
> But what about the other packages from this maintainer? He maintains
> around 36 other packages:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/iburrell
>
> E.g. the jigdo packages also has 4 bug. I looked at two an both did
> not receive any comments from the maintainer:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426847
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503833

Indeed. I don't see much activity from them. 
Have you tried sending them an email? 
If not, I can. 

> Therefore the non responsive maintainer procedure, i.e. orphaning all
> packages from the affected maintainers, seems to me to be more
> appropriate.

In this particular case, yes.

kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100115/e65b0189/attachment.bin