Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
> So it looks like we failed to CC the public list on the discussions, darn…
>
> This was discussed in a mail exchange with the Insight maintainer, krege
> (the maintainer who picked up the rest of the itcl stack just before the
> mass-retiring) and B
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:34:23 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
> The reason insight is
> orphaned in the first place is because of the indiscriminate retiring of its
> dependency (see the mailing list thread announcing the orphaning), the
> maintainer already stated he'll pick it up again if iwidgets is
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:43:23 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this
> > package ? 2 days after orphaning? where?
> >
> > In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new
> > maintainer wants I would be ha
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this
> package ? 2 days after orphaning? where?
>
> In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new maintainer
> wants I would be happy to review the package. Just submit it and cc me.
So it looks lik
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> And nevertheless, this thread is also about an orphan within F-17:
>
> # yum install insight
> [...]
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Package: insight-6.8.1-5.fc17.x86_64 (fedora)
> Requires: iwidgets
>
> The missing requirement had buil
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:48:37 -0800, TK (Toshio) wrote:
> The orphan packages are more varied. Originally, there were packages that
> had been orphaned for many releases. I believe that now we're cleaning up
> all orphaned packages at each release branching so this may not be as much
> the case.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:25:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
> >>
> >> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:39:10 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
> >>
> >> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 da
On 02/21/2012 06:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Do we really need a policy saying "Use common sense. In case of conflicts,
this supersedes all other policies."?
It's often hard to distinguish common sense from equally common nonsense.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://ad
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 00:25 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Do we really need a policy saying "Use common sense. In case of conflicts,
> this supersedes all other policies."?
Absolutely not.
> Why isn't this obvious? :-/
Because common sense is anything but common, and often not sense.
--
Adam
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
>>
>> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
>
> Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
>>
>> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
>
> Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
>
> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you
just want t
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Packages that were affected via rpm dependencies were listed as part of
> the announcement. I looked through the list for packages I cared about and
> in one case let the asterisk packers know about a dependency of asterisk
> that was on the list that I didn't want to maint
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 18:26:36 +0100,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Half of the distro was affected by the indiscriminate mass orphaning done
> this time. There was no way to know which packages would still have been
> affected at the end.
Packages that were affected via rpm dependencies were li
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Note that there already is a grace period. The policy used to be that a
> review was needed after a package was orphaned.
No. The policy used to be that a review was needed if the package was 1.
orphaned AND 2. not updated for 3 months. And there was basically no
enforce
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 17:55:01 +0100,
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
>
> Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
> (More days have passed now, but that's just because we all lo
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy.
Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period?
(More days have passed now, but that's just because we all lost a lot more
time discussing this than it would have taken an admin to
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review.
>
> This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which
> were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintain
On 02/20/2012 11:39 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review.
>
> This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which
> were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now?
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review.
This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which
were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now?
(iwidgets was one of them, but I've seen mails about
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 16:56:28 +0100,
Patrick Monnerat wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > *You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ "insight" properly:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
>
> *** This is not a norm
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> *You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ "insight" properly:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
*** This is not a normal end of life: this is an assassination ***
There's a maintainer (krege) who'
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:23:53 +0100, PM (Patrick) wrote:
>
> Since packages belonging to maintainer that have not changed their
> password have been removed, I keep being notified about a broken
> dependency in package "insight", depending on "iwidgets".
>
> "iwidgets" has been deprecated and thu
Since packages belonging to maintainer that have not changed their
password have been removed, I keep being notified about a broken
dependency in package "insight", depending on "iwidgets".
"iwidgets" has been deprecated and thus, as long as this situation
remains, "insight" will be broken.
Cons
25 matches
Mail list logo
