EPEL [Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux] #4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages.

[Steve Traylen]

Excerpts from Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux's message of 2014-10-01 07:45:38 +0200:
> #4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages.
> ----------------------------+----------------------------
>  Reporter:  till            |      Owner:  epel-wranglers
>      Type:  defect          |     Status:  new
>  Priority:  major           |  Milestone:
> Component:  Policy problem  |    Version:
>  Keywords:                  |
> ----------------------------+----------------------------
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Retired_Package
>  defines the criteria to unretire packages in Fedora and in EPEL if the
>  package is still active in Fedora. However there is now a request to
>  unretire a package that is also retired in all branches for more than two
>  weeks (at least in pkgdb):
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-
>  devel/2014-September/010212.html
> 
>  Therefore the question is, whether a re-review is required. IMHO it does
>  not make much sense for EPEL, since there should be no guideline changes
>  that require adjusting the EPEL SPEC files. Nevertheless, I would like to
>  get a consensus on this.

It's definitely needed I would say for this particular case. I think the
EPEL maintainers had no idea the pkg orphaning in fedora was going to lead
the a complete retirement in all branches. 
I'm kind of amazed this has never (obviously) happened before. (I'm interested in classadds.)




> 

-- 
-- 
Steve Traylen, CERN IT.