Re: RFC: drop FTBFS packages?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis
<fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
> I think we should open bugs in bugzilla
Why open new bugs? The bugs are there already (see Bugs taht are blocking
#501) and IMHO can be used for further discussions (and are the best place
for them IMHO). That's why I didn't CC people and why I said "of course we
would need to announce that in the bug reports a few days before we actually
do it". ;-) Sorry, should have clearer from the start.
I was referring to the first step of the "Non Responsive Maintainers" policy:
"When a Fedora member notices that a maintainer isn't answering their
bugs, not answering rebuild requests, emails or the like, they need to
file a bug against the package in bugzilla asking for the maintainer
to respond. This bug should list the outstanding issues they need to
address. This is a must. Note: Be sure to check the Vacation page
before opening the bug, to verify that the maintainer is not away on
vacation. "
I should have specified it more clearly.
> for these and then follow the
> standard "Non Responsive Maintainers" policy that Fedora has:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMain...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS would be the proper way here IMHO. I
tend to say "NonResponsiveMaintainers" would have to much impact. Especially
as we know that most (all) of them are in fact around and are still
maintaining other packages.
I don't know. If maintainers cannot handle some packages they should
orphan them.
Bye,
Andrea.