FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-15-2010, 08:58 PM
Till Maas
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:01:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:

> > What about the other packages of these maintainers? E.g. in the
> > recordmydesktop case, there were four bugs open with working patches
> > attached for that package. I did not yet check the other packages, but
> > in case a packager does not have the time anymore to maintain one
> > package from this list, why do we assume that he has the time to
> > maintain the others?
> > So before the mass orphaning is done, it would be nice to do it in a way
> > that allows to at least easily spot which maintainers owned the packages
> > before the orphage, so non responsive maintainers can be found easier.
> > Or tell all maintainers in question and orphan all their packages. But
> > the current solution seems to be only half-baked.
>
> I made sure that no one who fixed a package was actually the package
> owner.

But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not fail
to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that fail to
build?

> perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
> perl-SVN-Simple iburrell

There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
submitted in the upstream bugtracker iirc 7 days ago. But I also noticed
that the -Mirror package was removed from debian.

But what about the other packages from this maintainer? He maintains
around 36 other packages:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/iburrell

E.g. the jigdo packages also has 4 bug. I looked at two an both did not
receive any comments from the maintainer:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426847
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503833

Therefore the non responsive maintainer procedure, i.e. orphaning all
packages from the affected maintainers, seems to me to be more
appropriate.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-15-2010, 10:05 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:58:54 +0100
Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:

> But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not
> fail to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that
> fail to build?

There may be some cases of that. If so, the non responsive maintainer
procedure should be used on those maintainers.

> > perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
> > perl-SVN-Simple iburrell
>
> There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
> submitted in the upstream bugtracker iirc 7 days ago. But I also
> noticed that the -Mirror package was removed from debian.
>
> But what about the other packages from this maintainer? He maintains
> around 36 other packages:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/iburrell
>
> E.g. the jigdo packages also has 4 bug. I looked at two an both did
> not receive any comments from the maintainer:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426847
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503833

Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
Have you tried sending them an email?
If not, I can.

> Therefore the non responsive maintainer procedure, i.e. orphaning all
> packages from the affected maintainers, seems to me to be more
> appropriate.

In this particular case, yes.

kevin

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-15-2010, 10:14 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 22:58 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> But what about the other packages by these maintainers that do not fail
> to build but are probably as unmaintained as the packages that fail to
> build?
>

Because this isn't a fully proper non-responsive maintainer approach, we
felt it was only necessary to orphan the particular packages in
question. These maintainers may have been active elsewhere, and
wholesale orphaning with very little notice does not seem appropriate.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-15-2010, 10:47 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

Hi,

On 01/16/2010 03:50 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for people,
>> not for packages. The people may still be active (and even known to be
>> active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which are assigned to
>> them would still look orphaned. FTBFS is just one way to find packages
>> that don't even build.
>> However, if that happens, it may be much too late. Such a package may have
>> been in an unmaintained desolate state for a long time already.
>
> In general I've been running the FTBFS scripts about monthly; maybe
> less so as we approach a release (nearly all packages get rebuilt,
> especially if there's a mass rebuild that happens). I think that's
> frequent enough to detect FTBFS; also we're not yet proposing dropping
> packages that don't rebuild in F13 yet; only those that never got
> rebuilt for F12. So the FTBFS now-orphaned packages are at 1 year old
> with no real progress to speak of.
>
>
>> With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
>> reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
>> worse if it turns out that packages which do build are unmaintained
>> nevertheless, with the same symptoms in bugzilla and in package scm.
>
> We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say
> "MAINTAINED". An automated process would generate such tickets,
> blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintainer to close
> the ticket to remain the owner of the package. Tickets still open
> after $SOMEDELAY would be candidates for orphan or non-responsive
> maintainer process. Repeat at $SOMEINTERVAL, perhaps once per release
> cycle (more would be too onerous I think).
>
> With a slight modification, my ftbfs bugzilla script could generate
> the tickets.
>
> Thoughts?
>


Bad idea (says someone who owns 150 packages). I don't feel like
getting 150 bugzilla mails and having to (mass) close them each
release.

Regards,

Hans
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-16-2010, 03:13 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> 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.
>
> At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
> would be marked orphan.
Well, if FESCO thinks this was a good idea ... I think you guys stopped
half-ways: You better should have launched AWOL-processes against these
maintainers.

> I know several of these have been fixed by
> provenpackagers already - you are welcome to un-orphan and maintain
> them going forward, or the original package owner may choose to do so.

Unfortunately, this has proven to be hard/impossible so far.

>> perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136

I intended to take this one, but the packagedb doesn't offer me an
option to take it:

C.f.:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Class-InsideOut

This package appears to be owned by owner "orphan" and doesn't offer the
"Take Ownership" button, I see on packages listed on
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/orphans
otherwise.

Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-16-2010, 03:39 AM
Matt Domsch
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 05:13:29AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Unfortunately, this has proven to be hard/impossible so far.
>
> >> perl-Class-InsideOut-1.09-2.fc11.src.rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=539136
>
> I intended to take this one, but the packagedb doesn't offer me an
> option to take it:
>
> C.f.:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Class-InsideOut
>
> This package appears to be owned by owner "orphan" and doesn't offer the
> "Take Ownership" button, I see on packages listed on
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/orphans
> otherwise.

Indeed, I see the same thing when logged in - no "Take Ownership" button. Toshio?

--
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
 
Old 01-16-2010, 08:13 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:13:29 +0100, Ralf wrote:

> On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >
> > At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
> > would be marked orphan.
>
> Well, if FESCO thinks this was a good idea ... I think you guys stopped
> half-ways: You better should have launched AWOL-processes against these
> maintainers.

It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for people,
not for packages. The people may still be active (and even known to be
active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which are assigned to
them would still look orphaned. FTBFS is just one way to find packages
that don't even build.
However, if that happens, it may be much too late. Such a package may have
been in an unmaintained desolate state for a long time already. With
nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug reports having
been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And worse if it turns out
that packages which do build are unmaintained nevertheless, with the same
symptoms in bugzilla and in package scm.

Makes me wonder what bugzilla status report scripts we have? To create a
list of potentially unmaintained packages earlier and to detect packages
with non-responsive owners.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-16-2010, 08:39 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 04:05:04PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:58:54 +0100
> Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:

> > > perl-SVN-Mirror iburrell (fixed by Till Maas; spot says kill it)
> > > perl-SVN-Simple iburrell
> >
> > There is a minor error: I fixed the -Simple package with a patch
> > submitted in the upstream bugtracker iirc 7 days ago. But I also
> > noticed that the -Mirror package was removed from debian.
> >
> > But what about the other packages from this maintainer? He maintains
> > around 36 other packages:
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/iburrell
> >
> > E.g. the jigdo packages also has 4 bug. I looked at two an both did
> > not receive any comments from the maintainer:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426847
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503833
>
> Indeed. I don't see much activity from them.
> Have you tried sending them an email?
> If not, I can.

No, please go ahead.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-16-2010, 08:48 AM
Till Maas
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:13:29 +0100, Ralf wrote:
>
> > On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > >
> > > At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
> > > would be marked orphan.
> >
> > Well, if FESCO thinks this was a good idea ... I think you guys stopped
> > half-ways: You better should have launched AWOL-processes against these
> > maintainers.
>
> It's a more fundamental problem, though. The AWOL-process is for people,
> not for packages. The people may still be active (and even known to be
> active somewhere) and not AWOL, but the packages which are assigned to
> them would still look orphaned. FTBFS is just one way to find packages
> that don't even build.

If the maintainers are still active and still do not ask for help for
the packages they cannot handle, then this is imho a behaviour that
should not be supported. If we orphan all packages for maintainers with
long standing FTBFS bugs that are not worked on and the maintainer still
care about some of their packages, they can just unorphan these
particular packages.

> However, if that happens, it may be much too late. Such a package may have
> been in an unmaintained desolate state for a long time already. With
> nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug reports having
> been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And worse if it turns out
> that packages which do build are unmaintained nevertheless, with the same
> symptoms in bugzilla and in package scm.

I agree.

> Makes me wonder what bugzilla status report scripts we have? To create a
> list of potentially unmaintained packages earlier and to detect packages
> with non-responsive owners.

There are the probably not working anymore scripts that were used ages
ago for the weekly(?) Fedora package status reports:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/status-report-scripts/?root=fedora

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 01-16-2010, 08:59 AM
Hans de Goede
 
Default Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

Hi,

On 01/15/2010 09:01 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:17:28PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> At today's FESCo meeting, it was agreed that all the below packages
>> would be marked orphan. I know several of these have been fixed by
>> provenpackagers already - you are welcome to un-orphan and maintain
>> them going forward, or the original package owner may choose to do so.
>
> What about the other packages of these maintainers? E.g. in the
> recordmydesktop case, there were four bugs open with working patches
> attached for that package. I did not yet check the other packages, but
> in case a packager does not have the time anymore to maintain one
> package from this list, why do we assume that he has the time to
> maintain the others?
> So before the mass orphaning is done, it would be nice to do it in a way
> that allows to at least easily spot which maintainers owned the packages
> before the orphage, so non responsive maintainers can be found easier.
> Or tell all maintainers in question and orphan all their packages. But
> the current solution seems to be only half-baked.
>

You know we have a procedure for this it is called the awol maintainer
procedure and it would be nice if FESco would follow its on procedures
here.

Ah well I guess the rules don't apply to those who make them

Regards,

Hans

> Regards
> Till
>
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:07 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org