• last koji / bodhi activity was on Jan. 20, 2025 (libgit2-1.9.0-4.fc42 build), 5 months ago
• last bugzilla activitiy was on Jan. 19, 2025 (on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2306523 , and previous activity three months before that on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2300894 ), 5 and 8 months ago, respectively

+1

+1

+1

So, our policy says:

If approved, and the reporter is a current Fedora packager in good standing, interested in comaintaining the package, FESCo will default to adding the reporter as the package admin. If the existing co-maintainers of the package do not want the package to be reassigned to the reporter, they should state so in the ticket. If assigned ownership, the reporter can now perform any required package maintenance.

So, technically we should add you as admin... but... you intend to just retire the package, so I'm not sure if that falls under 'required maint'. Perhaps we should allow until next week for them to respond?

Waiting another week won't hurt anything.

P.S. Pete notably maintained ICU and did rebuilds of dependent packages whenever it was updated, so somebody else will need to handle that if Pete does not reappear. The maintainer is @erack; he probably just assumed Pete would keep doing it.

Correct, I assumed so. Note that I won't be available anymore after August this year, or only sporadically, so best if someone else would be taking the ICU package as well.

@pwalter ping, do you still want to maintain your packages?

Well, if Pete returns eventually, it will be quite welcome. We didn't agree on everything, but he kept a bunch of packages in good state.

This ticket is... APPROVED (+3, 0, 0)

Sorry for the delay here.

I've added you to the package as an admin, so you can do the retirement.

Note that retiring it will break:

• apvlv
• gthumb
• meteo
• minigalaxy
• webkit2-sharp
• xiphos

It would be good to handle those in some way (update/port them, or retire them also).

Thanks, I'll look into these packages soonish.

It appears that this was approved, but not implemented? The packages were not orphaned.

I was given admin rights to webkit2gtk4.0, but indeed Pete's packages have not been orphaned, which is supposed to happen according to the policy. Reopening.

I will retire the package now, and will review Adam's list in the coming days. In most cases, porting the dependencies will probably be trivial, and I should be able to send pull requests.

Ideally, those packages would have been ported to webkit2gtk-4.1 before webkit2gtk4.0 was retired. Now the maintainers of those packages are getting automated FTI bugs and may not be aware of or remember the change leading to this.

@catanzaro, can maintainers of these packages assign those FTI bugs to you?

No. I'll look at these packages soon as a courtesy to save the ones that are easy to save, which might well be all of them. But it's not useful to assign the bugs to me.

I filed a releng ticket to get the actual orphaning / removal from packages processed:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12858

I filed a releng ticket to get the actual orphaning / removal from packages processed:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12858

Done.

This will be announced in today's agenda.

apvlv

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apvlv/pull-request/1

gthumb

Already handled by the package maintainer, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gthumb/pull-request/10

meteo

Depends on libsoup-2.4 unfortunately. I don't have time for this one; it will need to be handled by the package maintainer.

minigalaxy

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minigalaxy/pull-request/6

webkit2-sharp

Already retired by the maintainer.

xiphos

Already handled by the maintainer.