On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:27:41PM +0000, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 06/01/25 18:50, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 6:03 PM Stephen Smoogen <ssmoo...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 11:49, Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 10:05 AM Mattia Verga via devel > >>> <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >>>> Despite 0.16 being available as tag in repository since 2015, libnova > >>>> was never updated and it's still 0.15 in Fedora. > >>>> > >>>> I have notified the package maintainer long ago [1], but I never got a > >>>> reply. So I plan to push an update as provenpackager, which will include > >>>> a soname bump (from libnova-0.15.so.0 to libnova-0.16.so.0) and rebuild > >>>> all dependent packages in a side-tag for Rawhide. The list of affected > >>>> packages is: > >>> Please don't use provenpackager privileges for this kind of thing. > >>> If the maintainer is truly unresponsive, that's what the unresponsive > >>> maintainer process is for. > >> > >> If this is not what 'proven packagers' are allowed to do, it might be good > >> to have everyone who has proven packager go through some sort of > >> "retraining" as what Mattia announced doing has been common practice for a > >> long time. It actually seems covered by > >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages/ > >> > >> If the packager doesn’t keep track of those items, then other experienced > >> packagers are free to fix stuff for them. > >> > >> I am expecting that this is an area which needs more clarity. > > On the page you linked, there's a list of examples of situations when > > using PP privileges is appropriate, just below the paragraph you > > quoted - security issues, bugs that cause data loss, etc. But "just > > update to a new version" is not on the list. That's clear enough in my > > book ... but sure, documentation can always be improved. For example, > > I'm not sure if this page predates the non-responsive maintainer > > process (it feels very old), so maybe it just has never been adapted > > to its existence. > > > > Fabio > > Oh, I've missed the fact that I indeed have commit rights to libnova > through astro-sig... so I'll use my PP rights just to rebuild stellarium > (kstars is under astro-sig too and the other packages I maintain them > directly). > > If that's not ok neither, I will ask stellarium maintainers to rebuild > the package under the side-tag when ready.
A rebuild for a changed SONAME in a different package is certainly fine using provenpackager privileges. It's both a "small adjustment" (a rebuild without any changes in the package) and a part of a "mass rebuild" as listed in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages/. It also matches common practice and understanding. That said, the text in that page could be updated to list such cases clearly. Zbyszek -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
