On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive.
>> And in my original reply I only asked some questions related to
>> packages being considered "potenti
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive.
> And in my original reply I only asked some questions related to
> packages being considered "potentially unmaintained".
Is there a secret definition of "potentia
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:34:54 -0400 (EDT), Seth wrote:
> seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive.
Me neither.
And in my original reply I only asked some questions related to
packages being considered "potentially unmaintained".
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
The subject says "potentially unmaintained packages".
> The message makes a fuss about it, even mentions scenarios like retiring
> packages. What it doesn't comment on is that despite missing rebuilds,
> a package may still be maintained both in Fedora and upstream. It doesn't
&
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:01:01 -0700, Adam wrote:
> It seems to me that Seth quite carefully wrote his email specifically to
> forestall replies of this kind. Apparently it wasn't enough...
Of course not. The subject says "potentially unmaintained packages".
The message makes
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 09:19 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT), Seth wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I worked on a script back in January which produced a list of packages
> > that needed to be looked at. The reason was that the pkg had not been
> > built by koji in
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> I agree, and thought Seth made his point well. I typically consider the
> set of things in Fedora I need to worry about to be the set of bugs
> assigned to me, plus the ones I've files, plus any FTFFS or broken deps
> I'm aware of. If somethin
> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi writes:
TK> Querying bugzilla is a comparatively expensive process so it's
TK> probably something we need to do by syncing the count of bugs into
TK> the db via a cron job. Any takers?
I could probably whip something up.
- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:38:03AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 13.04.2010, 17:03 -0400 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>
> > http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potentially-unmaintained/2010-04-13/
>
> I see packages_by_user, pkgs_with_bugs and everything. What I would like
> to see i
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 05:03:55PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you
> should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained
> consider retiring it."
The junction with bug information is also interesting. I t
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:20:05PM +0200, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 14.04.2010 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Why would it need to be rebuilt manually?
>
> You don't need to. If a package is working perfectly fine and no update
> is available there's no need to rebuild.
>
On 04/14/2010 05:20 AM, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 14.04.2010 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> Why would it need to be rebuilt manually?
>
> You don't need to. If a package is working perfectly fine and no update
> is available there's no need to rebuild.
>
>>> "Hey, this pkg has
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT), Seth wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I worked on a script back in January which produced a list of packages
>> that needed to be looked at. The reason was that the pkg had not been
>> built by koji into dist-rawhide by
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 13.04.2010, 17:03 -0400 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>
>> http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potentially-unmaintained/2010-04-13/
>
> I see packages_by_user, pkgs_with_bugs and everything. What I would like
> to see is pkgs_with_bugs_by_u
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:20:05 +0200, Felix wrote:
> >> "Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you
> >> should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained
> >> consider retiring it."
> >
> > It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Wo
Hi Michael,
On 14.04.2010 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Why would it need to be rebuilt manually?
You don't need to. If a package is working perfectly fine and no update
is available there's no need to rebuild.
>> "Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you
>> s
Am Dienstag, den 13.04.2010, 17:03 -0400 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potentially-unmaintained/2010-04-13/
I see packages_by_user, pkgs_with_bugs and everything. What I would like
to see is pkgs_with_bugs_by_user, because this is something that should
really consider
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT), Seth wrote:
> Hi,
> I worked on a script back in January which produced a list of packages
> that needed to be looked at. The reason was that the pkg had not been
> built by koji into dist-rawhide by a non-automated process in more than 6
> months.
W
Hi,
I worked on a script back in January which produced a list of packages
that needed to be looked at. The reason was that the pkg had not been
built by koji into dist-rawhide by a non-automated process in more than 6
months.
This list is NOT to shame or embarass anyone. It is only to say:
19 matches
Mail list logo
