Summary - Broken dependencies in Fedora Extras - 2006-11-24

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sun, 2006-11-26 at 13:43 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius schrieb:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 17:42 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> >>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 07:48:31 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>> There needs to be a way to
> >>>> blacklist these packages from showing up in the report or else send
> >>>> them to another interested party such as fedora-legacy
> >>> I've suggested a black-list several times before without clear
> >>> feedback. Black-listing packages is like hiding something under the
> >>> carpet. 
> >> Agreed, until now I don't see any good reason for a blacklist.
> > How about FESCO implementing some rules on "taking consequences" from
> > EVR issues in FE not being taken care about?
> 
> Sounds like a good idea -- but you don't have to wait for FESCo -- the
> Committee has a lot of stuff to do already and the members to the work
> in their spare time, too.
> 
> Someone inside or outside of FESCo that cares about this particular
> problem could just work out a detailed plan what to do. Then FESCo will
> probably simply ACK it and say "thanks for your help.
> 
> > E.g. "broken deps > 4weeks", and the package will be automatically
> > orphaned plus the maintainer's account will be withdrawn/canceled?
> 
> I agree with Gianluca: That's a bit overkill.

Why would that be overkill?

Broken EVRs break upgrades. Something I consider to be "serious
packaging bugs".

I consider maintainers not being able to address a severe issue within
"a reasonable timeframe" as "these persons not doing there job". I don't
see what would be wrong in confronting them with sanctions.

Mistakes happens, oversights happen, but not at least _trying_ to
address them without any doubt is beyond reason and let's appear these
folks in a "special light".

>  But yes, something in that direction.

Ralf