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

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Thu Jan 23 23:19:11 UTC 2014

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:08:13 -0800
Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:


> I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the
> debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was
> truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no
> longer required changing' - and throw that out?
> I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that
> no-one would really mind getting rid of.

I think the problem would be coming up with a acceptable criteria for
detecting 'truely abandoned' packages. 

I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package. 
Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it. 
Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know
that others install and use it. 

It has no bugs currently opened against it. 

It's not failed a mass rebuild. 

The last time I touched it was to move it to use systemd unit files 
(it can optionally run a network service to return it's data). 

Is this a package that should be removed for being abandoned? 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140123/cee10b36/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list