On 09/02/2013 09:33 PM, Marguerite Su wrote:

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Sascha Peilicke wrote:

...

Hi Marguerite,

it seems like it's time to review your requests, it's only been 2 months :-/ While the submits look mostly fine to me, I wonder whether the lua dependencies should go into devel:languages:lua following the package style / naming there and be linked instead into server:messaging?

From glimpsing at d:l:lua, it's in a really sorry state and needs a lot of love. I don't know if you'd be interested in working on that, thus I'm opening this up to the wider community.

Hi,

Thanks.

I'm fine with the dependency and linking. Also you can add me maintainer for these packages, because seems I'm now the only one using prosody in an openSUSE production environment (I use it for Chinese community's Gtalk group :D)

But for d:l:lua, I'm sorry that it's out of my capability:

1. I don't know lua coding, so I have rare interest in adding new packages unless the package I use depends on them.

Understandable, but I only meant you to add the packages you already did. For example, "luaevent" could be added as devel:languages:lua / lua51-luaevent and branched into server:messaging. Similarly the others.

2. It's the most important: lua ABI changes fast and upstream packages based on Lua are always at different status, eg:

You use lua-devel (which is 52) for packaging, and it's successful. But wait, the package upstream still hasn't port their package to 5.2 so you can't get the package running on your machine at all, or some lua dependency hasn't so even if your main package has been ported, you still can get the app running. (in my SRs, it's the case)

Depends on the distro I'd say. For never ones (where 52 is indeed default) you're already building with lua51-devel, so I don't see an issue. d:l:lua also has "lua51" available.

So it's even more complicated than Python (you can't compile a python3 package using python 2.7, but lua can).

Not quite true, as long as $software adheres to ABI version X (in any language), you should be able to run it with version X+1. That's called API/ABI backwards-compatibility. That's the same with Python BTW. But I don't think that Lua is forward-compatible in general.

The repository maintainer has to actually use those packages in her life...

Hope these can help you when you broadcast repo maintainer call to the public.

Greetings

Marguerite

-- Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

Am 19.09.2013 09:35, schrieb Marguerite Su:

Hi, Saschpe,

Sorry for the delay, I just got a little bit overloaded with 1310 zh_CN translations and LXDE fixes.

Oh, no problem at all. Thanks for doing all that btw.

Now I cleaned up my lua packages to lua51-*.

But there're problems in d:l:lua...the packages which were successfully built failed at its side.

So can you please enrole me the maintainer of d:l:lua so I can make some pre cleanup/fix?

You have to formally request maintainership, I don't have any rights in d:l:lua.

You see, the lua51 package there even isn't the one used in Factory.

Greetings

Marguerite

-- With kind regards, Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:

...

You have to formally request maintainership, I don't have any rights in d:l:lua.

Well that is a big issue as once I sr'ed for maintainership and after couple of months of non action of the current maintainers I revoked it.

There are couple of packages waiting with couple of months of no action.

Yes, 4 SRs. BTW, how to SR a ReqMS? I checked osc help. seems I can't request maintainership for a whole project.

...

...

You see, the lua51 package there even isn't the one used in Factory.

And the devel should be d:l:lua but no one has fixed it yet and if one is not the maintainer of the repo then (s)he can't do much

So if it is possible to have someone with magic powers to remove those who have been inactive in caring for the repo and replace them with those who would do a better job.

In 12.2~12.3 time, that repo is very active. seems maintainers' interests shift. Coolo can help with that. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:

Not really. In such cases the next one to ask are the build service admins, i.e. admin@opensuse.org

Well, another two weeks passed...I wrote to admin yesterday... And Cinnamon 2.0 is out...I took a look at X11:Cinnamon:Factory, it's still 1.6. Same situation: We are not lacking of capable hands, they both have 4-6 SRs willing to help, but the original owner's absence made such projects inactive. Can we develop a RFC to "take over" these projects? sometimes human mind just shifts quickly...we don't even know they still use openSUSE or not if they don't show up regularly... Marguerite -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org