rawhide perl-5.12 status

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 07/07/2010 03:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 07/07/2010 01:28 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>    
>> On 07/07/2010 09:37 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>      
>>> On 07/03/2010 08:06 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>        
>>>> An update:
>>>>
>>>> I filed BZ's on all of those packages which haven't not already been
>>>> tracked as FTBS. All of these BZs are tagged as "F14Target" rsp.
>>>> F14FTBFS (which indirectly blocks "F14Target").
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Thank for filing these bugzillas.
>>>        
>> Welcome. ATM, these are still open:
>>
>>      
>>>> * BackupPC-3.1.0-14
>>>>          
>>>>> wants perl-suidperl (Abandoned by perl-5.12.)
>>>>>            
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611009
>>>        
>> Fedora maintainer and upstream maintainer seem to have difficulties in
>> understanding the issue and finding a solution. Iain has proposed a
>> (IMHO) viable work-around, but no conclusions/results so far.
>>
>>      
>>>>> * perl-DBI-Dumper
>>>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream.
>>>>>            
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555496
>>> FTBS, open since 2010-01-14, no response from maintainer.
>>>        
>>      
>>>>> * perl-Data-Alias
>>>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream.
>>>>>            
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611014
>>>        
>>      
>>>>> * perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule
>>>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream.
>>>>>            
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611015
>>>        
>>      
>>>>> * perl-Test-AutoBuild
>>>>> Fails to build - Dead upstream
>>>>> (Upstream maintainer: Daniel P. Berrangé,
>>>>>     Fedora maintainer: berrange at fp.org ?!?)
>>>>>            
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539046
>>> FTBS, open since 2009-11-19, no response from maintainer.
>>>        
>> I'd propose to close and abandon the perl-* packages rather "soonish
>> than later" and not to wait for "Fedora 14". I.e. I'd propose to set
>> these package's maintainers a firm deadline (say, 1-2 weeks from now)
>> and then to kill the then remaining perl-modules.
>>
>> IMO, these package's maintainers and their upstreams knew about these
>> packages issues for long enough and had sufficiently often been warned.
>>
>> Ralf
>>      
> After I gained so much popularity on fedora-devel, I have no courage to
> ask rel-eng for another
> favour like "remove package, which is not mine". But surely ping
> maintainers
> to orphan/kill these packages in week or two would be nice.
>    
They all are being pinged daily - All of these packages are included 
inside of the broken deps reports.

> I suppose packages, which won't be fixed, have: A/ dead upstream, B/
> no-one is using them. Therefore I agree with removal.
Well, these packages all carry broken deps and are uninstallable in rawhide.

I.e. unless they can be fixed, it's only a matter of whether _we_ kill 
them or whether rel-eng/FTBS will kill them later.

> If they were
> essential, they would be probably rewritten and re-added later.
>    
As I wrote earlier, I tried to check whether they are used by Fedora, 
but unless I have missed something, I haven't found any such case.

Ralf