major libgda and libgnomedb upgrade notice

Jeff Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 14:27:39 UTC 2005


On 11/28/05, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> You can: Ship compat packages.

and then orphan them a week later?

Since there are no guidelines for how long someone is required to hold
maintainership over a package in general... i think your insistence
for this single case is misplaced. This is the price that is paid for
having a rolling model without distinct releases.  It's inapporpriate
to force a packager to maintain compat packages for a time period
beyond what they feel comfortable maintaining securely on their own.
It irrational to believe that all versions of all libraries can be
maintained forever into the future.  Extras has never promised to be a
static platform for development. At most Extras promises to be
self-consistent.  Expecting an extras maintainer to make a general
warning to this list and to use the tools like repoquery and
repoclosure to pinpoint dependancies inside Extras are reasonable
expectations. For their actions to be constrained by potential
unknowable dependancies is unreasonable given the nature of the Extras
rolling development model.

The only sane and fair way to impose what you want is not by
harrassing individual maintainers, but by changing the Extras
development model so that it has established point releases with
specific requirements on maintainer actions at point release
boundaries. And that's an argument you need to have with the steering
committee.

-jef"Letting Hans bumble around breaking stuff will actually make the
argument for changing the Extras development model stronger...lose a
battle..to win the war"spaleta




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list