concept of package "ownership"
supercyper1 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 2 13:36:34 UTC 2010
2010/7/2 Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr>:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 02:23:43PM +0200, Peter Czanik wrote:
>> 2010-07-02 03:18 keltezéssel, Kevin Kofler írta:
>> > 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?
> That's very much against the fedora policies.
>> 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.
> Indeed. Maintainer time out are for completly missing maintainers, not
> to force them to apply a change.
>> Obviously I'm not a proven packager to
>> update the package myself, as I'm not a Fedora developer.
> Even if you were a provenpackager you would be forbidden from doing that.
> Provenpackagers right to modify other people packages are far from
> being that large. Have a look at the relevant policy if you want more
>> 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...
> And the provenpackager policy wouldn't help either.
> In the past we proposed a policy for that kind of issues with Rahul,
> but it was never approved (nor really considered).
> The only thing that can be done, right now for such issues is the
> traditional escalation procedure. I don't know if it is documented
> anywhere, but it is along
> * make yourself clear in a bugreport (which is already done)
> * explain the issue on the devel list (guess you already did that)
> * escalate to FESCo
I think escalating to FESCo is only suitable for changes which are
controversial between different people, we should have another policy
to treat those non-responsive issues, maintainers should respond on
bugzilla report in time.
More information about the devel