[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Broken dependencies: gdal

>>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer  writes:

JB> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:51:39AM -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
>>>>>>> "OP" == Orion Poplawski  writes:
OP> buildsys fedoraproject org wrote:
>>>> gdal has broken dependencies in the development tree:
>>>> On ppc:
>>>> gdal-1.6.0-4.fc11.ppc64 requires libhdf5.so.5()(64bit)
>>>> gdal-1.6.0-4.fc11.ppc64 requires libodbcinst.so.1()(64bit)
>>>> gdal-1.6.0-4.fc11.ppc64 requires libodbc.so.1()(64bit)
OP> I'm happy to do the bootstrap rebuild to fix this, but ACLs are closed.
>> I've repeatedly requested the maintainer open up the ACLs on these
>> packages, but never received a response to my e-mails on this subject.
>> It's very frustrating.
>> What is the procedure in these cases to get a maintainer to justify
>> keeping ACLs closed?  Escalate to FESCo?

JB> Does the maintainer still fix bugs and otherwise work on the package?

JB> If not, start the AWOL maintainer process.

The maintainer does work on the package, so he isn't strictly
non-responsive.  But the packages are broken sometimes for several
weeks or even up to several month the maintainer and rarely responds
to direct e-mail or bug reports (for example I, and others, have open
requests to us as co-maintainers for months now and he hasn't approved
or rejected them):


This means that the stack of GIS-related packages he maintains remains
broken in rawhide for a long time, meaning less time for testing
before general release.  If he opened up ACLs others could step up and
fix/rebuild packages when appropriate in the interim.

The issue here is that he hasn't justified provided any justification
for closing ACLs.  I thought the idea of the mass ACL opening to
'provenpackager' was that a justification is required for keeping ACLs


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]