Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:08:30 +0100
Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> wrote:

> I don't see who the orphaning without following proper procedure is
> appropriate at all. Simply blocking the ones which FTBFS bugs were not
> fixed from F-13 inclusion would have been the appropriate response
> (as documented in our procedures), not
> some adhoc almost random response.

These packages have failed to build for over a year. 

Sure, we could allow them to continue if someone steps in to build
them, but then who is answering bugzilla tickets on them? Who is
following upstream and updating them, in short: who is maintaining
them? Not the maintainer of record it seems. 

if you want them to go on, take ownership. 

Sorry for the bug that prevented people from doing this, it's been
fixed. 

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/20100116/f4ae2e04/attachment.bin