Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Till Maas]

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.

Do maintainer really "often" forget, that they own a certain package?
Ok, maybe if they are forced to do this from Red Hat, I do not know. But
I am happy for every package that I do not have to maintain.

But I think packages with no bug reports because they are not
used are also not that big of a problem if they exist, unless they are
really big or take very long to be rebuilt. It's imho at least not a
problem that needs to be checked for every year. Or can you point to any
known issues because of such packages since Fedora started?

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100118/4c752e10/attachment.bin