Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 11:55 -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.
> 
> In fact, if we were only checking once a year, I bet many of these
> packages are going to get hidden behind the mass rebuilder.

So...the argument is we should worry about packages that don't get
touched every six months, but no-one should be bothered about this,
because everything gets touched at least every six months, even if it's
not by the maintainer so the touch doesn't prove anything one way or
another about the activeness or otherwise of the maintainer?

I'm a bit lost. :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net