Dear Fesco: Orphan package process needs work

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at math.uh.edu
Fri Oct 6 19:04:28 UTC 2006


>>>>> "DW" == David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> writes:

DW> Extras seems to lack that ethos, and people get massively
DW> proprietorial about their packages. And _that_, I think, is the
DW> root of the problem here.

I haven't seen too much of that, except for a few highly-strung
exceptions.  I've gone through and fixed packages before, and in fact
we have a policy in under discussion that codifies this.  (Basically,
trusted members of the community always are free to fix things that
need fixing.) 

That, however, isn't what the current issue is about.  The bottom line
is that packages still need to have at least one active maintainer,
and if the maintainer disappears then we need to make sure that
packages don't make it into the next release of the distro.  We're up
against a deadline here.  Packages can always come back; nothing is
permanently deleted, and there's no cutoff data for CDs or anything
like that.

All if would have taken to avoid this issue was a note saying "I'm
really busy right now; someone please rebuild my packages and if you
like add yourself as a co-maintainer."  Problem solved.  This happens
all the time.  We even have SIGs which act as virtual co-maintainers.

 - J<




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list