Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Seth Vidal]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 14:04 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>
>>> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
>>> fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
>>> touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is
>>> opened not closed in the bugzilla on the package.
>>>
>>
>> I disagree about the bug being open. A lack of filed bugs could mean that
>> no one CARES about the pkg at all. And if we have pkgs which are not being
>> maintained AND no one cares enough to file a bug about then either they
>> are:
>>
>> 1. extraordinarily stable
>> 2. dead upstreams
>> 3. unmaintained
>> 4. unusued
>>
>> in ANY of those cases I'd want to start thinking about nuking the pkg from
>> fedora.
>
> So that means that for example for the openoffice.org-dict-cs_CZ package
> I'll get the nag bug report before each and every Fedora release?
>
> It is definitely not 4. however 1. and 2. apply to it. As this is just a
> czech spelling and hyphenation dictionary which is pretty good one and
> we do not have any alternative anyway I do not think that 2. matters
> much.
>
> OK, I think my next changelog entry in the .spec will be something
> like:
> - rebuilding just for the sake of not getting a nonsense bug report
>  opened against the package

Really? We need all this drama?

I have another radical idea - we could whitelist all sorts of things which 
are unchanging and yet used. We could act like reasonable folks and 
realize that one extra bug report A YEAR that you have to close as 'fixed' 
is really not that big of  a deal.

-sv