Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (447 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Request 545194 would cause drop of fortune
On 2018-01-11 09:32, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
On Thu, 2018-01-11 at 09:25 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
On 10.01.2018 23:00, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
If there is no explicit package maintainer assigned, the project
maintainers are the designated maintainers of the packages therein.

Well, then what's the problem of fortune and recode that Knurpht mentioned?
By that definition, they have a maintainer and don't need to be dropped.

The person that did the work on recode decided not to do it anymore..
and rightly so wants it dropped. Until just recently, only one person
mentioned that he wants to take it over. recode is largely unmaintained
by upstream, but CVEs won't stop for that. So whoever decides to take
on maintainership of that package has to be aware of that.

And keeping recode just for fortune sounds like an overkill (especially
taking into account that Jan created a submission for recode to get rid
of the recode dependency).

Add to that that I also drop packages from TW that have a maintainer
assigned, but where the maintainer fails to actually fix packages for a
long time.

Is there such a strong sentiment for recode? Really?

Then why don't you consider a fortune replacement?
I suggested "misfortune" at this thread start. It is included in TW.

I have it installed on Leap and it works. The only caveat is that it is
called "misfortune", but the command line is compatible, so a symlink
would solve the caveat. It even supports UTF-8 strings. It is done in

The only snag I see is that its documentation doesn't hang from the
documentation directory, a packaging error probably.

Apparently there are other fortune replacements, known as "fortune-mods".

Cheers / Saludos,

Carlos E. R.
(from 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

< Previous Next >