Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
On 8/7/20 3:58 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
At a guess because the old maintainer didn't want to maintain it anymore https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/811842
Simon Lees wrote:
On 8/7/20 3:58 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
At a guess because the old maintainer didn't want to maintain it anymore https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/811842
I have updated it in the past, but I guess I wasn't the maintainer.
Per Jessen wrote:
Simon Lees wrote:
On 8/7/20 3:58 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
At a guess because the old maintainer didn't want to maintain it anymore https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/811842
I have updated it in the past, but I guess I wasn't the maintainer.
Having raised two issues, one for Leap, one for Tumbleweed:
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
it appears the package maintainer took it upon himself to remove the package, instead of giving it up for adoption. I think this is an outright failure of our do-ocracy.
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 21:33:02 +0200 Per Jessen per@computer.org wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Simon Lees wrote:
On 8/7/20 3:58 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
At a guess because the old maintainer didn't want to maintain it anymore https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/811842
I have updated it in the past, but I guess I wasn't the maintainer.
Having raised two issues, one for Leap, one for Tumbleweed:
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
Why does anybody post just a bug number rather than a link? Sorry, Per, I just get annoyed every time somebody does this. :)
it appears the package maintainer took it upon himself to remove the package, instead of giving it up for adoption. I think this is an outright failure of our do-ocracy.
Sounds like an outright failure of the policy manual and the software that enforces it. i.e. It should be policy that maintainers can't remove packages (that's a meta-admin function or so) so their options are reduced to saying that they're not able/willing to continue to maintain it.
Dave Howorth wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 21:33:02 +0200 Per Jessen per@computer.org wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Simon Lees wrote:
On 8/7/20 3:58 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
At a guess because the old maintainer didn't want to maintain it anymore https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/811842
I have updated it in the past, but I guess I wasn't the maintainer.
Having raised two issues, one for Leap, one for Tumbleweed:
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
Why does anybody post just a bug number rather than a link? Sorry, Per, I just get annoyed every time somebody does this. :)
Fair enough - the shortcuts above work in bugzilla, it's probably muscle memory, but point taken.
it appears the package maintainer took it upon himself to remove the package, instead of giving it up for adoption. I think this is an outright failure of our do-ocracy.
Sounds like an outright failure of the policy manual and the software that enforces it. i.e. It should be policy that maintainers can't remove packages (that's a meta-admin function or so) so their options are reduced to saying that they're not able/willing to continue to maintain it.
+1
On Sun, 09 Aug 2020 18:36:33 +0200 Per Jessen per@computer.org wrote:
Dave Howorth wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2020 21:33:02 +0200 Per Jessen per@computer.org wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Simon Lees wrote:
On 8/7/20 3:58 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Why was lilo removed from Tumbleweed ?
It is really annoying that someone is hellbent on screwing up my system.
At a guess because the old maintainer didn't want to maintain it anymore https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/811842
I have updated it in the past, but I guess I wasn't the maintainer.
Having raised two issues, one for Leap, one for Tumbleweed:
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
Why does anybody post just a bug number rather than a link? Sorry, Per, I just get annoyed every time somebody does this. :)
Fair enough - the shortcuts above work in bugzilla, it's probably muscle memory, but point taken.
Well, first I have to think of something that FF will remember as a way to reach the bugzilla and execute it. Then I type bug#1173385 and it says "Zarro Boogs found." whatever that means. But it doesn't show a bug for sure. And the same for bug#1174984. This is https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=bug%231174984 FWIW.
it appears the package maintainer took it upon himself to remove the package, instead of giving it up for adoption. I think this is an outright failure of our do-ocracy.
Sounds like an outright failure of the policy manual and the software that enforces it. i.e. It should be policy that maintainers can't remove packages (that's a meta-admin function or so) so their options are reduced to saying that they're not able/willing to continue to maintain it.
+1
:)
On 09/08/2020 21.10, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2020 18:36:33 +0200 Per Jessen <> wrote:
Dave Howorth wrote:
Having raised two issues, one for Leap, one for Tumbleweed:
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
Why does anybody post just a bug number rather than a link? Sorry, Per, I just get annoyed every time somebody does this. :)
Fair enough - the shortcuts above work in bugzilla, it's probably muscle memory, but point taken.
Well, first I have to think of something that FF will remember as a way to reach the bugzilla and execute it. Then I type bug#1173385 and it says "Zarro Boogs found." whatever that means. But it doesn't show a bug for sure. And the same for bug#1174984. This is https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=bug%231174984 FWIW.
I take an existing open bug in my firefox, I have dozens to choose. I copy the url and paste it on a new tab, then I edit out the number part:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=
Then I add the new number:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173385
then I hit "enter" to display it.
:-)
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 21:34:11 +0200 "Carlos E. R." robin.listas@telefonica.net wrote:
On 09/08/2020 21.10, Dave Howorth wrote:
On Sun, 09 Aug 2020 18:36:33 +0200 Per Jessen <> wrote:
Dave Howorth wrote:
Having raised two issues, one for Leap, one for Tumbleweed:
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
Why does anybody post just a bug number rather than a link? Sorry, Per, I just get annoyed every time somebody does this. :)
Fair enough - the shortcuts above work in bugzilla, it's probably muscle memory, but point taken.
Well, first I have to think of something that FF will remember as a way to reach the bugzilla and execute it. Then I type bug#1173385 and it says "Zarro Boogs found." whatever that means. But it doesn't show a bug for sure. And the same for bug#1174984. This is https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=bug%231174984 FWIW.
I take an existing open bug in my firefox, I have dozens to choose.
I don't have any bugs open usually.
I copy the url and paste it on a new tab, then I edit out the number part:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=
Then I add the new number:
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173385
then I hit "enter" to display it.
:-)
OK, some complicated procedure with complicated preconditions works for you :)
But why does searching fail, when Per says the shortcuts work?
And what's wrong with posting working URLS in any case!!! :)
Dave Howorth composed on 2020-08-09 18:25 (UTC-0400):
bug#1173385 bug#1174984
But why does searching fail, when Per says the shortcuts work?
Put just the numerical digits in the search box and the desired resulting URL will open.
Within BZ itself, #1173385 within any comment will be linkified to the proper URL.
And what's wrong with posting working URLS in any case!!! :)
Much too much trouble obviously. :P
On 10/08/2020 02.07, Felix Miata wrote:
Dave Howorth composed on 2020-08-09 18:25 (UTC-0400):
> bug#1173385 > bug#1174984
But why does searching fail, when Per says the shortcuts work?
Because it is not search that does it.
Put just the numerical digits in the search box and the desired resulting URL will open.
Right.
Within BZ itself, #1173385 within any comment will be linkified to the proper URL.
Right.
And what's wrong with posting working URLS in any case!!! :)
Much too much trouble obviously. :P
It is easier to find in the active the "bug#1173385" string, and clicking there it works, inside Bugzilla.
If one is aware of the problem, then one looks to find the URL instead.
On 8/9/20 7:16 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
Sounds like an outright failure of the policy manual and the software that enforces it. i.e. It should be policy that maintainers can't remove packages (that's a meta-admin function or so) so their options are reduced to saying that they're not able/willing to continue to maintain it.
Maintainers can't remove packages on there own, they need to create a delete request which is reviewed by someone on the release team, in this case they agreed with the maintainer. It is also pretty easy to undelete a package if a new maintainer is found.
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 21:28:08 +0930 Simon Lees sflees@suse.de wrote:
On 8/9/20 7:16 AM, Dave Howorth wrote:
Sounds like an outright failure of the policy manual and the software that enforces it. i.e. It should be policy that maintainers can't remove packages (that's a meta-admin function or so) so their options are reduced to saying that they're not able/willing to continue to maintain it.
Maintainers can't remove packages on there own, they need to create a delete request which is reviewed by someone on the release team, in this case they agreed with the maintainer. It is also pretty easy to undelete a package if a new maintainer is found.
Right, but that still results in the package being deleted with a negative impact on users. Given the existing process you have described it should be a rule that the reviewer must refuse a request for deletion unless the requester can demonstrate that an attempt has been made to find a new maintainer. But a better idea IMHO would be to change the process so that workflow occurred automatically.
-
Carlos E. R. -
Dave Howorth -
Felix Miata -
Per Jessen -
Simon Lees