concept of package "ownership"

Peter Czanik pczanik at fang.fa.gau.hu
Fri Jul 2 12:23:43 UTC 2010


2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
>   
>> So I've noticed maintainers of packages in Fedora seem to have a concept
>> of ownership, and I'm wondering if we could remove that word from usage
>> about maintainership.
>>     
> +1
>
> IMHO any sponsored packager should be free to do changes which benefit the 
> Fedora Project to any package, no matter who officially maintains the 
> package. And such changes include things like upgrading the package to the 
> current upstream release in Rawhide, especially when that release is needed 
> for other packages. Even a provenpackager can't always make such changes 
> without getting yelled at.
>
> I think we need to get rid of the concept of ownership entirely, that'd also 
> make orphaned or de-facto orphaned packages less of a problem. You see a 
> problem, you fix it. Who cares whether the package has an active maintainer 
> or not?
>   
+1
I'd like to get syslog-ng updated to the latest version in Rawhide (I
work part time for the upstream developer and I'm also an occasional
Fedora user). I contacted the package owner, no response. Created a
bugreport to get it updated (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598961 ), and also provided
an updated package, which compiles and works fine on Fedora 12, 13 and
Rawhide. After waiting for weeks, I started a maintainer time out. It
was closed within an hour. I got some comments on bugzilla, but nothing
happened ever since. The updated package was never downloaded from my
website.

What can I do in this situation? Obviously I'm not a proven packager to
update the package myself, as I'm not a Fedora developer. I worked a lot
to update and test the package, but still I'm stuck. And as you can see,
the maintainer timeout procedure does not help either...

Bye,
CzP



More information about the devel mailing list