[SoaS] Fwd: Retired Fedora packages with maintainers

[Thomas Gilliard]

Note that irc works in Soas but is not installed.
Dnf install in sugar terminal works, then call it in terminal.

> On May 12, 2020, at 10:14 AM, Alex Perez <aperez at alexperez.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> FYI. See below e-mail. There may be others in the list that I'm unaware of. Ibiam, we should probably get you set up as a maintainer
> for the sugar packages listed below:
> 
> Here's a curated list of packages that are/may be relevant to us/SoaS:
> 
> rpms/sugar-analyze is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users
> rpms/sugar-analyze is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pbrobinson, tuxbrewr, callkalpa
> rpms/sugar-help is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users
> rpms/sugar-help is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pbrobinson, callkalpa
> rpms/sugar-presence-service is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pbrobinson, tomeu
> rpms/webkitgtk is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users
> rpms/webkitgtk is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': pwalter, kevin, tpopela, huzaifas, mso
> rpms/webkitgtk3 is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users
> rpms/webkitgtk3 is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': phatina, mclasen, pwalter, tpopela 'groups': @gnome-sig
> rpms/webkitgtk4 is retired but does not list 'orphan' in its users
> rpms/webkitgtk4 is retired and has the following: 'maintainers': tpopela, kalev, catanzaro 'groups': @gnome-sig
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou at pingoured.fr>
>> Date: May 11, 2020 at 11:49 PM
>> To: devel-announce at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Subject: Retired packages with maintainers
>> Good Morning Everyone,
>> 
>> A little while ago we have received the request on the infra issue tracker to
>> remove all maintainers of retired packages [1].
>> 
>> So today I decided to look at what this would look like and wrote a script that
>> queries PDC for the list of all branches on all projects [2], gather from it a
>> list of all the packages that are retired on all their branches (so all branches
>> are ``active=false``).
>> For each of these retired project, it queries dist-git to find out if they still
>> have maintainers in addition to the ``orphan`` user.
>> 
>> The outcome of this script can be found there:
>> 
>>   https://pingou.fedorapeople.org/retired_packages_with_maintainers.log
>> 
>> 
>> Some stats about this:
>> - 881 RPM packages are retired and still have maintainers (out of 4322 retired
>>   RPMs).
>> - 662 of them are not orphaned
>> - 42 modules are retired and still have maintainers (out of 42 retired modules).
>> - all of them are not orphaned
>> - 2 containers are retired and still have maintainers (out of 3 retired
>>   containers).
>> - all of them are not orphaned
>> 
>> Which brings a couple of questions:
>> - Do we have a documented way to mark modules as orphaned or retired?
>> - Should we orphan all the RPM packages that are retired but not orphaned?
>> 
>> 
>> Finally, does everyone agree about the original request: "remove all maintainers
>> of retired packages"? Or should we bring this to FESCo?
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for your inputs,
>> 
>> Pierre
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8600
>> [2] https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/extras/active_branches.json (8+Mb file)
>> _______________________________________________
>> devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SoaS mailing list
> SoaS at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/soas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/soas/attachments/20200512/6a69f356/attachment-0001.htm>