rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:25:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 
> > On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
> >> 
> >> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
> > 
> > Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo.  If you
> > just want to rant instead, feel free.
> 
> My point is that this does not require any change in policy, just an admin 
> applying common sense rather than following the letter of the policy to the 
> absurd. It's unfortunate that here, the humans are serving the policy rather 
> than the opposite!
> 
> Do we really need a policy saying "Use common sense. In case of conflicts, 
> this supersedes all other policies."? Why isn't this obvious? :-/
> 
Just a historical note since I remember some of the discussion about this:
it was thought that by the time a package has been retired it has already
undergone a long period where it was uncared for.  This could be said to
still be the case for the packages which were retired because they FTBFS for
several releases.

The orphan packages are more varied.  Originally, there were packages that
had been orphaned for many releases.  I believe that now we're cleaning up
all orphaned packages at each release branching so this may not be as much
the case.  There could still be packages that were orphaned for up to
6 months, missing out on all of a new releases pre-alpha period of
development.  Not sure that this is that much of a concern, though.

Another thought that I remember being put out for discussion at the time
(although I do not know if it informed the final decision) was that packages
deserve periodic re-reviews anyhow.  So if they had hit a point where they
had been retired, it was a nice, well-demarcated time to require that of
them.

Once again, these are just historical reasons for this, current FESCo is
certainly free to decide whether these reasons are still relevant or are
outdated.

-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/20120221/1cf96c07/attachment.sig>