Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
2010/1/15 Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@dell.com>:
> ohm-0.1.1-9.39.20091215git.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539200
This should be a dead package, upstream is no longer being maintained.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 01:40 PM
Matthias Clasen
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:48 +0000, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 07:27 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > -----------------
> > Removing gmfsk also removes:
>
> This one is now fixed.
>
> > -----------------
> > Removing gnome-scan also removes:
>
> There's a patch logged against this now FWIW
There is also a newer version 0.7.1 (a year old, actually), which needs
a small patch as well to build against current babl. I would just build
it, but I don't have a scanner around to do any testing. I've put the
patch in the same bug, if somebody else wants to jump in...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 01:41 PM
Till Maas
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
> are the oldest non-building packages in the distribution, everything
> else (over 8800) managed to build for Fedora 12 or newer already.
A more up to date list is available here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=511348&hide_resolved=1
> I'd like to propose the above list be dropped from the distribution,
> prior to Fedora 13 Alpha freeze, unless the package is made to build
> in rawhide before that.
This is in a month (2010-02-16).
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 02:33 PM
Till Maas
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 04:13 PM
Matt Domsch
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
> are the oldest non-building packages in the distribution, everything
> else (over 8800) managed to build for Fedora 12 or newer already.
>
> awn-extras-applets-0.3.2.1-8.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511628
> evolution-brutus-1.2.35-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511451
> geronimo-specs-1.0-2.M2.fc10.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511494
> gmfsk-0.7-0.6.pre1.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511780
> gnome-scan-0.6.2-1.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511591
> Io-language-20071010-10.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511617
> knm_new-fonts-1.1-5.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555487
> libFoundation-1.1.3-11.fc9.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511470
> ohm-0.1.1-9.39.20091215git.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539200
> perl-AnyEvent-XMPP-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511749
> perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
> perl-Jemplate-0.23-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538984
> perl-MooseX-Traits-Attribute-CascadeClear-0.03-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511570
> perl-RRD-Simple-1.43-3.fc9.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464964
> perl-SVN-Mirror-0.75-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511770
> perl-SVN-Simple-0.27-7.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511729
> prctl-1.4-5.2.1.src.rpm (last built July 12, 2006, ExclusiveArch ia64)
> python-openhpi-1.1-3.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511675
> qtiplot-0.9-11.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511688
> recordmydesktop-0.3.8.1-1.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538931
> skychart-3.0.1.5-6.20081026svn.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539202
> smarteiffel-2.3-2.fc9.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511362
> synce-kde-0.9.1-4.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539195
> unifdef-1.171-8.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511553
> widelands-0-0.13.Build13.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511430
> xpilot-ng-4.7.2-16.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511717
> xqilla10-1.0.2-6.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511599
> xqilla-2.1.3-0.6.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511425
Folks, while I appreciate you fixing these packages so they build
again, _please_ do take the time to consider if they are unloved
enough to be orphaned and dropped anyhow. If it's a leaf node in the
dependency tree, dead upstream, and unresponsive Fedora maintainer, it
should be orphaned and dropped rather than having a little bit of tape
applied to it and sent back into the game...
--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 04:17 PM
Milos Jakubicek
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
Synce-kde should be EOL'd already a long time (it has been replaced by
something else, can't remember details unfortunately anymore) -- I spoke
about this with the maintainer some months ago and wonder this is still
on the list...
Regards,
Milos
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 05:55 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On 01/15/2010 01:00 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> perl-AnyEvent-XMPP-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511749
This one is awaiting an upstream fix (probably coming with 0.6).
This is dead upstream (the code is there, but it doesn't do anything and
is marked as deprecated) and should be killed off. I've updated
perl-Fedora-Bugzilla to the latest version which no longer depends on it.
Debian dropped this package, I vote we also do the same.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543099
~spot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 06:04 PM
Michael Schwendt
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:17:21 +0100, Milos wrote:
> On 15.1.2010 07:00, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> > synce-kde-0.9.1-4.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539195
>
> Synce-kde should be EOL'd already a long time (it has been replaced by
> something else, can't remember details unfortunately anymore) -- I spoke
> about this with the maintainer some months ago and wonder this is still
> on the list...
I only remember that synce-hal replaced synce-serial, ... but in case
synce-kde really has been replaced by something, what is so difficult
about removing files in cvs and adding a dead.package? I can understand
that creating a releng ticket for the remaining steps is a bit of a hurdle,
but removing files in cvs/devel is easy enough.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 06:08 PM
Michael Schwendt
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:13:41 -0600, Matt wrote:
> Folks, while I appreciate you fixing these packages so they build
> again, _please_ do take the time to consider if they are unloved
> enough to be orphaned and dropped anyhow. If it's a leaf node in the
> dependency tree, dead upstream, and unresponsive Fedora maintainer, it
> should be orphaned and dropped rather than having a little bit of tape
> applied to it and sent back into the game...
For heaven's sake, yes, yes, *YES*!
We want responsive maintainers (at least _one per package_) for every
package in the Fedora package collection.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
01-15-2010, 08:12 PM
Adam Williamson
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:00 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
(it ships its own copy of xerces)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications
