Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
metherid at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 17:41:33 UTC 2014
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those
> patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied.
Yep but these are not unique to components with an inactive upstream. All
such enhancements take time to get through. Any changes in the packages
guidelines unless they break packages from building take a significant
amount of time to work through. I still see packages that are just now
adopting to using systemd macros for instance or guidelines from years back
and sometimes they are deliberately doing so to maintain compatibility with
older releases but in many cases, it has just not been urgent enough to
look into them until now. I have been working on a package (quassel)
where upstream is very active but the Fedora package maintainer has been
AWOL for a long time.
You have identified a problem but you are misattributing it. Even my own
packages there are times where I haven't touched them for a while because I
have been busy with other things. I would love to get more co-maintainers
and I have requested that from time to time. What we have in Fedora is a
general resource shortage and that is not particularly uncommon in any open
source project. The question we need to be asking ourselves is not whether
upstream is active but whether those package maintainers are active on
those specific packages and if they are not, how can we identify those
unattended packages and how can we help them get more attention? Cutting
of random packages off the distribution is the wrong way to solve that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel