Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 08:56:30AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:

> It was easier to just do devel, and that's the only place a package
> would be blocked if these don't get owners.  For the packages that do
> get owners, we can free up whichever branches the new maintainer wishes,
> which may not be all of them.

But then the package appears to be still maintained in the stable
branches in PkgDB, if they are only orphaned/blocked/retired in devel.
This is something that may normally happen, e.g. when a package is
obsoleted by another package.

Nevertheless, what is the recommended procedure to claim the other
branches? Is it a ticket to FESCo trac or a CVS Admin procedure request?

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/20100128/d6dd40a5/attachment.bin