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 04-13-2010, 09:03 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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:

"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."

There is no mandate from this from fesco or the board or the fpc or
anything. This is just a list that might help you remember a pkg you don't
use anymore and therefore forgot you also maintained.

okay?

so:

The script is here:

http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potentially-unmaintained/koji-old-pkg-query.py

I ran it again today and got some new results:

http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potentially-unmaintained/2010-04-13/

and I was asked to post them here.

just to reiterate this list is not definitive nor punitive, it's just
noting pkgs that have not been built by a non-automated process in a
while.

thanks!
-sv


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 07:19 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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.

Why would it need to be rebuilt manually?

> This list is NOT to shame or embarass anyone. It is only to say:
>
> "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. Would I
rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 07:38 AM
Christoph Wickert
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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 considered harmful. If a package has no bugs, I don't think it
needs a new build.

Regards,
Christoph

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:20 AM
Felix Kaechele
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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
>> 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. Would I
> rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
> issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?

Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a
need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the
list not having any implications.
For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that
I took over rubyripper some time ago.
I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can
just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself
directly

So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't
required to use this service.

Thanks Seth.

Felix



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 11:58 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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. Would I
> > rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
> > issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?
>
> Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a
> need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the
> list not having any implications.

Too many words in his message, too many sentences that imply something.
The last sentence of the message would have been enough, IMO.

> For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that
> I took over rubyripper some time ago.

Then you might find the following web interface helpful:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/heffer

> I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can
> just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself
> directly
>
> So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't
> required to use this service.

Sure it's useful somehow. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't be useful.
All the extra comments in the message just made me wonder.

> Thanks Seth.
>
> Felix

The list doesn't cover packages that have been (re)built, but suffer
from many issues as covered by ageing bugzilla tickets which have not been
commented on by the package maintainer.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 12:17 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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_user, because this is something that should
> really considered harmful. If a package has no bugs, I don't think it
> needs a new build.
>

okay. You can sort the everything.txt however you'd like.

the first column is pkg name
second is username
third is last build date
fourth is number of open bugs

here you go:

grep -v ' 0' everything.txt| sort -k 2 | awk '{ print $2, $1, $4 }'

that should output:
username pkgname bugnumber

sorted by username and not including any pkg with no bugs.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 12:21 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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 a non-automated process in more than 6
>> months.
>
> Why would it need to be rebuilt manually?

I never said it would. I just said it hadn't been rebuilt by a
non-automated process.


> It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I
> rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
> issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?

I never said you had to rebuild it. I think I tried very hard to make it
clear that this list was just to give folks a heads up.

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:09 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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 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. Would I
>> rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
>> issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?
>
> Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a
> need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the
> list not having any implications.
> For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that
> I took over rubyripper some time ago.
> I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can
> just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself
> directly
>
> So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't
> required to use this service.

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 something sits there for years, no bugs, no need for
rebuild, and no new releases, and it works, then I'm happy. Very happy
in fact.

As an added bonus, I took some amusement from the sheer size of my part
of his list.

-J

> Thanks Seth.
>
> Felix
>
>
>

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:10 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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 think that also
having theinformation about new releases would be quite interesting, for
packages that use the automatic new updates notification system.

--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:34 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default potentially unmaintained packages

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.
>
> >> "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. Would I
> > rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary
> > issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)?
>
> Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a
> need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the
> list not having any implications.
> For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that
> I took over rubyripper some time ago.
> I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can
> just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself
> directly
>
> So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't
> required to use this service.
>
> Thanks Seth.

That's how I took it too -- My packages in that list that are similar,
slow moving packages. Except for one that I think I should take a
closer look at massively upgrading in Rawhide or orphaning.

So thanks from me, too.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM.

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