Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:55:13AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 20:44 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > 
> > Imho the only real problem from your list is, if a package is
> > unmaintained, because if it is maintained, the maintainer usually uses
> > it, otherwise he would just drop it. If upstream is dead but the
> > maintainer fixes bugs, when they are found, I do not see a problem,
> > either. 
> 
> Often maintainers don't realize they have some of these packages, or the
> maintainers have left the project.
> 
> Even your most stable packages get touched nearly once a year due to
> distribution changes.  With a more active rpm upstream I suspect we'll
> be seeing even more need to rebuild everything, at least once a year.
> 
The problem with this is that we mass rebuild for it.  In the early days we
had one or two massrebuilds that weren't automated in order to catch
packages that were no longer maintained.  We could go back to that model but
is it desirable?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100118/b7abb971/attachment.bin