rpms/gtkglarea2/devel gtkglarea2.spec,1.12,1.13

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 12:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:12:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 16:30 -0500, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Author: mschwendt
> > > 
> > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gtkglarea2/devel
> > > In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2108/gtkglarea2/devel
> > > 
> > > Modified Files:
> > > 	gtkglarea2.spec 
> > > Log Message:
> > > Build disabled. Package is without maintainer.
> > 
> > This package clearly provides evidence of why "orphaning packages" is
> > unnecessarily strict, and why adding additional states of package
> > maintainership are useful 
> > (c.f.
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-March/msg00149.html)
> >
> > I have this package in a dep chain of a package I am using outside of
> > Fedora, and therefore had expressed my will to "have an eye on this
> > package" but am not interested in permanently maintaining this package.
> > 
> > Apparently others (notably Gerard Milmeister, he recently seems to have
> > adapted the spec to FC5) are in a similar position.
> 
> No, not a similar position. Gerard _depends_ on this package within FE
> (lablgtk). Which is why last night in the Wiki I moved this package from
> the list of "packages without maintainer" to "potentially orphaned
> packages". Note that I did not delete the binaries. However, owners.list
> does not reflect your (or Gerard's) interest in this package.
The Wiki did.

> > Here FESCo's policy of "strict maintainer<->package" apparently fails,
> > while collaborative, "keep package alive-maintainership" wouldn't be a
> > problem (gtkglarea2 is discontinued and stagnating for years,
> > nevertheless it still works and is being used).
> 
> See above. Add yourself to CC in owners.list (provided that this feature
> still works or will be corrected if it is broken).
I'll try.

Ralf