Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Mon Jan 18 18:30:16 UTC 2010
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
>>> common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
>>> for packages that appear via some criteria (have not been built, have
>>> not been committed to, have lots of bugs with no response, etc.), but
>>> doing it for *every* package seems like overkill.
>> Right - so maybe last check into devel branch since the last release of
>> the distro.
>> If we do that check before the alpha release that should let us track down
>> awol maintainers and unmaintained pkgs pretty easily, I think.
> The majority of my packages does not get updated that often (15 from 21)
> and there are also no bug reports unhandled for them.
> I am not sure how the ratio is for others, but it does not seem to be
> such a got criterion.
so 15/21 your packages don't get rebuilt, atall, from release to release?
More information about the devel