How to unorphan/unretire a package?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Somebody with full knowledge of the process please update the instructions
> in the Wiki:
> 
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers
> 
> The process described there is incomplete. And there are inconsistencies
> in the terminology. In pkgdb, a package is called "deprecated", which is a
> term not found in the packaging related Wiki pages. The Wiki uses a
> mixture of "orphaned" and "retired".
> 
> Please complete the steps on how to resurrect a package, which pkgdb mark
> with a "deprecated" box.
> 
Instructions for CVSAdmins to process these requests has been added to:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_Admin_SOP

Instructions for packagers added to:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_Admin_SOP

Additionally, I fixed up the database for a bug::

> [...]
> 
> The following has happened:
> 
>   Feb 6 08:44:57 UTC 2010
>   Package gnome-applet-netspeed in Fedora devel was orphaned by belegdol
>   http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-February/389883.html
> 
>   Feb 9 21:56:02 UTC 2010
>   Package gnome-applet-netspeed in Fedora devel is now owned by lyosnorezel
>   http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-February/391948.html
> 
> So, package was "orphaned" earlier this year and got a new owner three
> days later.
> 
> While it was still being discussed/evaluated how to proceed with the
> package in F-13 development, the package was kept alive in F-12 and F-11
> with bug-fixes.
> 
> Apparently, pkgdb continued to say "deprecated" for devel, although the
> package had an owner. With no documentation on what that means and when
> that mark would disappear. Removing the "dead.package" file and requesting
> releng to unblock the package in koji also did not affect pkgdb, although
> it was possible to build the package for Rawhide.
> 
Before our last pkgdb upgrade there was a bug in retirement that was leaving
the previous owner associated with the package instead of assigning it to
orphan.  I've updated the databaase tables to assign those to orphan now.
This bug should have been fixed in March.  The db seems to reflect that all
the records that had problems were created before March.  If there are more
problems I'll take another look.


> The process is unclear/confusing, and it would certainly help if we all
> used the same terminology.
>
yeah, there's a couple bugs in the packagedb.  One is only UI related, the
db stores the "deprecated" status but we want to show it as "Retired".  This
was done for the case with someone pushing the retire package button but not
when pulling up the package page again.
  https://fedorahosted.org/packagedb/ticket/200

The other bug is that long-term orphans and retired packages are currently
sharing the same status.  This is harder to fix but should be fixed as well.
  https://fedorahosted.org/packagedb/ticket/198

Working on packagedb is only one of the things that I have to do for Fedora.
If other people want to work on these I'll be happy to help you with
understanding the code to tackle these (or other) problems.

There's changes that are small (for instance the webUI fix above is going to
be a small amount of javascript coding), tasks that are architectural
(redesigning the json API for client side tools to use), and tasks for
designers (redesigning the search pages to be more intuitive, redesigning
the package acl pages).

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100626/4ee91b07/attachment.bin