[ACTION REQUIRED] Retiring packages for F-17

[Palooka]

Originally Posted by stevea

No gnome-terminal depends on vte3, not vte.

Oh. I stand corrected . Thanks.

[AdamW]

palooka: it has the thread title 'ACTION NO LONGER REQUIRED' or something along those lines.

[mschwendt]

Originally Posted by tox

Fedora always goes through this with each release but i think lately ( i think in Kevin Koflers post ) says why many are orphaning packages.

Some people (including past package maintainers) say that some packages are dropped because the user community does not show enough interest in the packages. I've talked to some maintainers, who've had the impression that nobody used the packages anymore, especially not with Fedora Alpha/Beta test releases. Which lead to the maintainer not getting any help with testing and not finding the time to do everything themselves, because all of a sudden they would need to spend much more time than expected on preparing updates. With some packages it takes several months before Fedora users install the previous stable release of the Fedora distribution and start complaining about bugs they find. For example, when Fedora 17 will be available, some users will take a first look at upgrading to Fedora 16. Some even want to skip 16 without any plan on how to proceed if 15 reaches EOL. It's some sort of cherry-picking that isn't helpful, because in case of problems a user ought to take a look at the latest distribution release as soon as possible (the earlier the better).

In parts I agree with those opinions, but I don't know how to fix the issue.

[jpollard]

welll...

Since developers don't listen to users, why should users listen to the developers?

Originally Posted by mschwendt

Some people (including past package maintainers) say that some packages are dropped because the user community does not show enough interest in the packages. I've talked to some maintainers, who've had the impression that nobody used the packages anymore, especially not with Fedora Alpha/Beta test releases. Which lead to the maintainer not getting any help with testing and not finding the time to do everything themselves, because all of a sudden they would need to spend much more time than expected on preparing updates. With some packages it takes several months before Fedora users install the previous stable release of the Fedora distribution and start complaining about bugs they find. For example, when Fedora 17 will be available, some users will take a first look at upgrading to Fedora 16. Some even want to skip 16 without any plan on how to proceed if 15 reaches EOL. It's some sort of cherry-picking that isn't helpful, because in case of problems a user ought to take a look at the latest distribution release as soon as possible (the earlier the better).

In parts I agree with those opinions, but I don't know how to fix the issue.

i think its more to the fact that " Packaging Guidelines " becomes to political an confusing to maintainers/co-maintainers so they orphan the package, Fedora is a Mess IMO when it comes to Package Guidelines. iv'e lost count on how many times its changed. iv'e seen the Guidelines changed more often than i have of Nappies

Originally Posted by jpollard

welll...

Since developers don't listen to users, why should users listen to the developers?

i agree with that.

[DBelton]

Originally Posted by jpollard

welll...

Since developers don't listen to users, why should users listen to the developers?

While I do agree that some of the developers have become deaf to user input, Not all of them have.

I have had very good results in communicating with some of the developers.

Now Gnome.. Well, those people don't even reach developer status in my mind. They are more like kids writing their first script for a etch-a-sketch.

[mschwendt]

Originally Posted by tox

i think its more to the fact that " Packaging Guidelines " becomes to political an confusing to maintainers/co-maintainers so they orphan the package,

Examples, please. What is too "political" or "confusing" to become a big issue after the package has been added to the collection already?

The package review process reveals that many submitted packages are mispackaged (not because they don't meet the guidelines, but because files are stored in wrong subpackages, build requirements are missing, debuginfo packages are empty, software setup is wrong, inter-package dependencies are wrong, just to name a few issues).

Fedora is a Mess IMO when it comes to Package Guidelines.

A mess? First time I hear that. Where is it a mess? And why?

iv'e lost count on how many times its changed. iv'e seen the Guidelines changed more often than i have of Nappies

It isn't a bad thing that the guidelines are still being worked on and that they are extended with new stuff from time to time. It's not as if package maintainers needed to follow a moving target in order to keep their package spec files working. Occasionally, they would learn where they could simplify their packages (and e.g. delete obsolete items).

A significant hurdle is when packagers receive a first series of crash reports sent via ABRT. Or when they want to upgrade a software release and that breaks dependencies and possibly even the API and results in much more work than expected. It's too easy for package maintainers to drop the ball, especially if interest in the packaged software doesn't seem to exist.

[Finalzone]

Originally Posted by jpollard

welll...

Since developers don't listen to users, why should users listen to the developers?

Does it apply to users who are actually developers themselves?

[Dan]

Okey dokey, folks. Those are perfectly valid questions, (in the last two posts) and as such, they need and deserve dispassionate and helpful answers ... or the problems they reveal will stand a far lower chance of being successfully resolved.

In short, no hair-pulls, please. Just accurate examples and conversation directed toward constructive results.

Thanks.