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

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: 
> > 
> > a) an automated/scriptable part. 
> > 
> > In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible
> > packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. 
> > There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have
> > bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. 
> > it generates a list that feeds to the next part. 
> > 
> > b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. 
> > 
> > Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust
> > the script to not generate them. 
> > 
> > As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components
> > that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. 
> Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last
> non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open
> bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so
> would be good candidates for inspection.

I looked into the build history of our package collection recently, more
specially trying to find the date of the last successful build of all our
packages using datagrepper.
I presented the output in:
http://blog.pingoured.fr/index.php?post/2013/12/17/Fedora-build-history

There is a rather small list that might be something to look into first:
66 packages have not been sucessfully re-built for 200 days or more


Pierre