Dear Fesco: Orphan package process needs work

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Christopher Aillon schrieb:
> Denis Leroy wrote:
>> I hereby claim my interest in picking up orphaned NetworkManager-vpnc 
>> (wiki updated).
>
> Thanks, Denis.
> 
> I'd like to make a request to FESCO or whomever to please take another 
> look at the process for orphaning packages.  In particular, I'm 
> extremely unhappy that NetworkManager-vpnc was dropped from the repository.
> 
> I did some investigating into what happened, and this is the general way 
> things went:
> 
> - All packages were tagged as needs.rebuild, mails sent out.
> - Davidz didn't rebuild the package.

He should have gotten at least two mails directly in his inbox that
should have told him to rebuild his stuff.

> - Notting sends davidz a mail saying the package was going to be 
> orphaned, and cc'd extras-list? asking for a new maintainer.
> - Davidz replied to the mail apologizing and saying he'd take care of it.
> - Notting sends "never mind, david will take care of it" to the list.
> - Davidz did nothing with the package.
> - It was dropped.

Note: only from the devel repo.

> - Within 48 hours of it being dropped, I received an email and several 
> IRC pings wondering where it was (I own NetworkManager in core).  I'm 
> sure Dan Williams did as well, maybe some other people.
> - Also within 48 hours of it being dropped, Denis Leroy steps up to 
> claim the package.
> 
> The most important things in that whole sequence are the last two. 
> Clearly, dropping the package impacted Fedora users negatively.

Users of the devel-tree should be able to handle that. And removing the
package is the best way to find a new maintainer ;-)

>  And 
> there was community interest in maintaining the package, so it's 
> plausible that had it been given a fair process, it wouldn't have been 
> dropped.
> 
> I believe the process for orphaning packages needs to address those.  I 
> propose this:
> 
> 1. Clearly after davidz replied to the first mail and the "request for 
> new owners" was dropped, then proceeded to do nothing, ANOTHER request 
> should have been initiated and allowed to go through to the end to allow 
>   someone to have the chance to take the package before it was 
> "orphaned".  This should be MANDATORY, in my opinion.

jwb replied to that already. But yes, the package probably shouldn't
have been dropped after davidz replied. But davidz should have taken
care of the package directly when he send this mail, then the package
probably wound not have been removed (afaics).

> 2. Packages should never be dropped when they are orphaned until they 
> break. [...]

I agree for the stable repo for dists that are released.

But for devel: No. No. No. We have to do some cleanup now and then,
otherwise it'll soon and in a great unsupported mess -- and devel is the
proper place for removals.

One of the reasons: Security. Packages that get shipped now for FE6 have
to be maintained and update by someone for the whole lifetime of FE6
(including Fedora Legacy). If you of someone else volunteers to take a
look after all orphans: okay, that let's leave them in. But I doubt
someone is interested in such a job.

CU
thl