Dne 08. 11. 18 v 10:03 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 08. 11. 18 v 1:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): >> On 11/7/18 9:22 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> On 05. 09. 18 9:38, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>> Dne 4.9.2018 v 21:46 Rex Dieter napsal(a): >>>>> Ben Rosser wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Rex Dieter <rdie...@math.unl.edu> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Vít Ondruch wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a bit unfortunate considering this is package >>>>>>>> every Fedora packager has to have installed >>>>>>> I don't think that's true, can you explain? >>>>>> Well, the "join the package collection maintainers" document >>>>>> explicitly tells new packagers to install fedora-packager, because it >>>>>> will "bring in everything necessary for general packaging work". >>>>> Sorry, I was going off the $SUBJECT that referened "fedora-package", >>>>> which >>>>> didn't exist as far as I could tell. *fedora-packager*, yes indeed. >>>> Sorry for the typo and confusion. I was speaking about fedora-packager >>>> indeed. >>>> >>>> And people need it not just because the "join ..." page suggests that, >>>> but there appears to be circular dependency between fedpkg and >>>> fedora-packager, presumably because fedora-pacakger ships some >>>> configuration files for koji, etc. >>>> >>>> I think that the idea behind this package was to have everything >>>> possibly needed by Fedora packager installed by single package. But when >>>> it is not maintained, then it somehow looses its point. >>> I'd like to revisit this discussion. >>> >>> Can we get rid of that package or make it maintained again? >> As far as I can tell it is maintained. After that last thread I talked >> with the maintainers and they merged / answered all ourstanding PR's as >> far as I know. >> >> If there's more to do, PR's welcome I am sure. > > > So what about opened tickets in upstream? If it was maintained, there > would be non or at least there would not be opened tickets such as > [1]. Click on "merge" button once somebody loudly complains is not > maintenance IMO. >
Just browsing the upstream, these should be removed or updated: https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/rpmbuild-md5 (What was is good for anyway??) https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/fedoradev-pkgowners https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/getPackages.sh https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/fedora-qa https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/fedora-hosted.py https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/fedora-cert.py (Not sure, but since kerberos, this is probably useless) This is two thirds of the repository content. Again, I can't see how this is maintained. V. > > V. > > > > [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/issue/138 > > >> kevin >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
