Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 15:08 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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 packages that were no longer maintained.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?
> 

Not in the least.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100118/72f58dff/attachment.bin