Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those > patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied. > Yep but these are not unique to components with an inactive upstream. All such enhancements take time to get through. Any changes in the packages guidelines unless they break packages from building take a significant amount of time to work through. I still see packages that are just now adopting to using systemd macros for instance or guidelines from years back and sometimes they are deliberately doing so to maintain compatibility with older releases but in many cases, it has just not been urgent enough to look into them until now. I have been working on a package (quassel) where upstream is very active but the Fedora package maintainer has been AWOL for a long time. You have identified a problem but you are misattributing it. Even my own packages there are times where I haven't touched them for a while because I have been busy with other things. I would love to get more co-maintainers and I have requested that from time to time. What we have in Fedora is a general resource shortage and that is not particularly uncommon in any open source project. The question we need to be asking ourselves is not whether upstream is active but whether those package maintainers are active on those specific packages and if they are not, how can we identify those unattended packages and how can we help them get more attention? Cutting of random packages off the distribution is the wrong way to solve that. Rahul
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
