Hello,
----- Original Message -----
> As requested on this ticket, I'm opening this up for discussion.
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1332
<snip>
> (a) The reason for wanting packages to be retired so quickly has not
> been made clear by rel-eng.
My reading of the ticket gives two reasons:
* Make the act of orphaning and the impact of removing a package more
connected to each other, allowing the reasons for orphaning
the package to be considered in the decision to retire or revive it.
(Retiring in smaller batches would help this as well.)
* Make broken dependencies caused by retiring a package more immediately
visible after the orphaning, to avoid once-per-release “time bombs”
and the scramble to suddenly find maintainers.
That our processes allows for such “time bombs” seems, to me,
an inherently bad thing that we should be fixing.
> (b) The biggest reason for people to use one distro over another is
> based on number of packages available to be installed. By retiring
> packages more quickly we inevitably reduce this number thereby making
> Fedora less popular.
We wouldn’t remove packages from released branches, and the cumulative impact
of the regular retirement cycles on rawhide would AFAICT be exactly the same as
the current one big retirement cycle.
> (c) An orphaned package is not necessarily a risk ("security" has been
> mentioned here ...).
We don’t want to gain a reputation of shipping packages that “are not
necessarily a risk but each user is required to verify this for themselves”.
Also, risk or not, an orphaned package is frequently a _burden_ on whoever has
to fix it up after failed rebuilds of the package, or API breakage by its
dependencies.
> (d) 4 weeks is too short. Some people go on holiday for this long.
That can obviously be tweaked.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
