Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

David Tardon dtardon at redhat.com
Thu Jan 23 12:09:52 UTC 2014


On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> 
> On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >>>On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hughes<hughsient at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% per
> >>>>>month, which is encouraging.
> >>>Replying to my own email, apologies. I've now gone through the entire
> >>>list of applications-in-fedora-without-appdata. A*lot*  of those
> >>>applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade, some
> >>>over a decade. I would estimate that 40% of all the apps in Fedora are
> >>>dead or semi-dead upstream. Excluding the KDE/XFCE/LXDE applications,
> >>>I'd say we had a 70% completion of the applications I'd like to see in
> >>>the software center. I've filed a lot of upstream bugs in the last two
> >>>hours, so hopefully that's another few percent sorted.
> >>I wished we could simply just clean those bits out of our
> >>distribution because quite frankly we have 14+k components in the
> >>distribution and not nearly enough manpower to cover that all.
> >You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is
> >forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of
> >another package "to fill the vacuum". That is not very likely. What is
> >likely, however, is that (s)he will become angered, orphan the rest of
> >his/her packages and disappear.
> 
> I was operating under the *assumption* that the package was not
> being maintained as Richard said here...

But he did not said that. "There have been any upstream release" and
"the package is not maintained in _the distribution_" are two completely
different statements.

> "A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in
> half a decade"

So? Maybe there have not been any bugs for half a decade that would
justify a new release? Or maybe the maintainer just keeps a lot of
patches in the package?

> Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt

Says you. Again, what if there are not any bugs? Hard to tell, because
Richard did not list any names. And at what point does package become
unmaintained? If I look at a couple of not-so-randomly selected
packages, I see libreoffice has got 66 unresolved bugs, evolution 126
and gnome-shell 903... So which of these (if any) are "not being
maintained"?

> and bad end user
> experience if our end user base chooses to install it.
> ( because if they were actually being maintained here with us those
> fixes would have found it's way upstream and new releases been made
> right ).

Which fixes again?

> 
> But clearly you dont understand that.

No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything
in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that _was not_
the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal
of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to
the rest of the distribution. And it can in fact have the opposite
effect, by alienating and losing existing packagers.

D.


More information about the devel mailing list