FE Package Status of Jul 5, 2006

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:57:30 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> Michael Schwendt schrieb:
> > On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:00:30 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 
> >> Christian.Iseli at licr.xxx schrieb:
> >>> rdieter at math.unl.xxx said:
> >>>>   What extra "news" is required? 
> >>> Go into the CVS devel directory, "cvs remove" all the files, create a 
> >>> dead.package file and "cvs add" it ...
> >>> That's the standard procedure for retired packages...
> >> Yeah, but that "standard procedure" is not documented probably in the
> >> wiki. Could somebody please do that? tia!
> > Could you please discuss this at FESCO-level, find out whether the CVS
> > branch script recognises the "dead.package" file. Then it could become
> > the official procedure. Else all dead packages would be branched for FC-6.
> 
> Well, is was discussed in FESCo months ago. From
>
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060323
>
> 19:41 <         thl> | something else regarding cvs:
> 19:42 <         thl> | we created FC5 branches in CVS for a lot of old
> packages that are orpahend or obsoleted
> 19:42 <         thl> | should they be deleted?
> 19:42 <         thl> | and the devel branch too?
> 19:43 <         thl> | jeremy, can the devel branch readded easily?
> 19:44 <     jeremy> | thl: probably.  and rather than delete the devel
> branch, possibly just a DEAD_PACKAGE marker
> 19:44 <      jeremy> | the problem with deleting it is that we lose
> history if it needs to come back
> 19:44 <         thl> | jeremy, k, sounds sane
> 19:44 <         thl> | jeremy, how could a DEAD_PACKAGE marker look like?
> 19:45 <         thl> | jeremy, just a file "dead.package"?
> 19:45 <         thl> | with a short explanation why it's dead in it?
> 19:45 <      jeremy> | works for me :-)
> 19:45 <         thl> | jeremy, the branch script would need to take care
> that no new branched are created later
> 19:45 <         thl> | but that's probably easy
> 19:46 <      jeremy> | well, allowing an older branch to be made is
> fine.  but not creating it when doing mass-branching is good
> 19:46 <         thl> | jeremy, exactly
> 19:46 <         thl> | k, that was all from my side
> 19:46 <      jeremy> | and the mass-branching is just a giant "for i in
> ..." script
> 19:46 <      jeremy> | if you get me a list of FC-5 branches which need
> to be killed, I can do that
> 19:47            <-- | dgregor has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection
> timed out))
> 19:47 <         thl> | jeremy, k, will try to find someone for that task ;-)
> 
> For me that discussion is enough (especially as the dead.package marker
> is used already) even if there was no "formal" decision /"voting" on it.
> 
> Michael, or is there anything else that you'd like to see discussed?
> Then I'll put it on the schedule.

Missing is the clear confirmation that this particular "dead.package"
marker file is supported by the relevant scripts actually. And as you've
noticed, too, this is completely undocumented. It's insufficient that an
IRC log contains comments about it. FESCO fails to make clear
announcements and doesn't even try to reach a broader audience. How often
have we discussed something in IRC only to forget about it because of
inactivity on the mailing-list? (e.g. whether Cc in owners.list still
works!)