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

Re: Purging the F12 orphans



On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 23:26 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 07/23/2009 06:43 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 13:35 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >> On 07/21/2009 12:06 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 20:11 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>> Orphan: pcmanx-gtk2
> >>>>     gnash-plugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> >>>>     gnome-chemistry-utils-mozplugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> >>>>     java-1.6.0-openjdk-plugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> >>>>     mozilla-opensc-signer requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> >>>>     swfdec-mozilla requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
> >>>
> >>> Umm.... What???
> >>>
> >>> Sigh.  pcmanx-gtk2.spec includes:
> >>>
> >>>         # We need to own this dir, because we don't want to Requires: firefox
> >>>         %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins/
> >>>
> >>> I think not.
> >>>
> >>> The package already "Requires: xulrunner"; which requires
> >>> mozilla-filesystem, which is what owns %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that predates mozilla-filesystem. pcmanx-gtk2 is safe to die if no
> >> one wants it (although, having a telnet client plugin for firefox is
> >> somewhat cool).
> > 
> > I have no interest in taking ownership of this package; but I would be
> > happy to fix this problem so that the package can be properly culled.
> > 
> This can be culled without anything further being done.  The
> mozilla-filesystem package provides the same thing as pcmanx-gtk2; when
> pcmanx-gtk2 goes away the dependency will still be satisfied.

Yes, I understand that killing it won't actually break anything.

If it will get removed without fixing this problem, then I will simply
go back to ignoring its existence.

> > Why aren't orphans given open ACLs?
> > 
> The argument people have made in the past is that orphaned packages
> should either be unorphaned or be retired; not brought up to snuff for
> random fixes that one developer decides are worthwhile while allowing
> other bugs to be reported without answers, etc.

That's not an argument I necessarily reject; though in this case I was
under the impression that a problem with the package was artificially
prolonging its life.  Generally speaking, that sort of thing would be a
problem if no one ever stepped in to fix the breakage.  However, if such
packages' lifetimes are limited by other means, then there's no real
problem here.

> (note that almost all packages should be open to provenpackager at this
> point, orphan or not.  If you want truly open acls, we need to also
> address the question of how to safely open acls on a package to anyone
> in the packager group.)

I guess I'm just not that cool.

-- 
Braden McDaniel <braden endoframe com>


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