Request for help and opinions: Rebuilding and basic checking for orphans

[Kevin Fenzi]

>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> writes:

Ralf> On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 07:05 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, den 01.03.2006, 10:37 -0700 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:

>> > I personally would suggest:
>> > 
>> > d) remove all of them that aren't required by other packages.
Ralf> ACK.

>> > and then all the remaining ones that are required by other
>> packages > should be taken over by those people who's packages need
>> them.
Ralf> I don't agree on this part - I find this to be rude to those
Ralf> maintainers requiring/depending on these packages.

Ralf> [Consider the perl packages, if one of those perl maintainers
Ralf> (who often maintain many packages, eg. JPO, Ville, Spot, Steve
Ralf> P. or me, would quit, this would push the others into a crisis.]

How interdependent are they? I thought most of them were pretty stand
alone? 

Ralf> Instead, I'd propose to add a new category, meaning
Ralf> "non-assigned, open to those maintainers needing it, but not
Ralf> dead". This would allow those maintainers who are depending on
Ralf> such packages to modify/update them without committing
Ralf> themselves to permanent maintainership.

Yes, but who would handle bug reports on those packages? No one?

>From a quick look at the current orphans we have 3 packages that need
other maintained extras packages for buildrequires: (that I can see): 

- lua - needed by fillets-ng
- ots - needed by abiword
- python-numeric - needed by pygsl

For runtime requires we have: 

- python-numeric has a pile of dependent packages: 
python-matplotlib-0:0.87-1.fc5.i386
fonttools-0:2.0-0.4.20050624cvs.fc5.i386
python-matplotlib-0:0.86-1.fc5.i386
pygtk2-0:2.8.4-1.1.i386
rpy-0:0.4.6-6.fc5.i386
fonttools-0:2.0-0.5.20050624cvs.fc5.i386
gnome-sudoku-0:0.4.0-5.fc5.noarch
pygsl-0:0.3.2-4.fc5.i386
pygsl-0:0.3.2-5.fc5.i386
rpy-0:0.4.6-7.fc5.i386

Any takers for those so we don't have to decide how to deal with
orphan packages that have dependencies? :) 

>> But I got the impression that some people thinks it's to late to
>> remove the orphan packages. But if others agree with this idea I'm
>> fine with it. Opinions please!

Ralf> I go with Kevin. Remove all unused orphans from the repo.
Ralf> Whether and how to keep them in CVS would be another topic.

agreed. 

Ralf> Ralf

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060302/8b311bdf/attachment.sig>