[SoaS] Fwd: Retired Fedora packages with maintainers

[Chihurumnaya Ibiam]

Yes it was removed as one of the defaults as it hasn't been ported to
python3 yet,
once it's ported I'll update it and you should get it in the next upgrade.

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:27 PM Thomas Gilliard <satellitgo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f7fc9f37/attachment.htm>