= phenomenon = The glfw packager (FAS name: bioinformatics) is repeatedly breaking API and ABI. This breaks other packages in Fedora [1], my university projects and most probably other users' projects.
I have reported a bug regarding this more than a year ago - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=966983
The maintainer stopped responding to the bug so I started the unresponsive maintainer process [2]. The maintainer would privately email me asking what I wanted but never anything regarding the bug. Nor have they replied to the list.
[1] The main trigger for this action is the cegui-samples subpackage in Rawhide that can't be built because no stable glfw is offered.[[BR]] [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-July/201139.html
= reason = The maintainer is packaging git snapshots instead of upstream releases. glfw upstream has many stable tarballs to choose from so I don't understand the reasoning behind the snapshots.
http://www.glfw.org/
See rhbz#966983 for more details if necessary.
= recommendation = I would prefer a non-confrontational solution but I am not sure how to achieve that. My communication with the packager has obviously failed because nothing changed and even more breakages have happened since. Perhaps FESCo will be more successful?
Alternatively, I am willing to take over the package and fix the situation.
FWIW, the complaint is about FAS bioinfornatics, not bioinformatics
Ah, yes, sorry about that.
I have sent emails to the right address though, I just checked.
It seems that the stable version of the library was never packaged in Fedora. I think we should make the maintainer to update to the stable release and stick with stable releases for the future. \\ If the maintainer is non-responsive and don't want to properly take care of the package the maintainership or co-maintainership should be given to more active and responsible (in this regard) Fedora contributor.
It sounds like we need a stable version in Fedora, but the maintainer is interested in tracking a devel version. We have some ways to eat this cake and have it still. One or the other could go in as a versioned package (glfw3), possibly with the other made to install in parallel. Or a software collection could be created (pending completion of those guidelines). Or it could go in Coprs (either as a software collection or not).
AFAICT the problem to deal with here is primarily the (not quite?) unresponsiveness of the maintainer; that would make the discussion about shipping snapshots more or less irrelevant.
We discussed this at today's fesco meeting:
agreed grant acls to mpreisle for the package so they can push stable releases to fedora stable branches and work with the maintainer to meet guidelines moving forward.(+6)
I've granted you those acls. Please let us know if there's any questions or concerns before pushing anything.
Dear,
Sorry this summer i was realy busy. Since now I do a PhD, I have lot of works and meeting to do and I took in more some holiday. I apologize for this disagreement
Login to comment on this ticket.