fas username: @jhogarth package: boost-nowide, certbot, cpp-hocon, lldpd, python-acme, python-certbot-apache, python-certbot-nginx, python-junit-xml, python-ntlm3, python-ntlm-auth, python-pyrfc3339, python-requests-credssp, python-requests_ntlm, python-winrm, sslh issues to fix: 26 total: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&email1=james.hogarth%40gmail.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=11410657&query_format=advanced nonresponsive maintainer bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883892 fedora-devel mail: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ASRYR2XVDDMQ7OQJOLWVLUZAWG6EI2L7/ comainainers: @ignatenkobrain, @nb, @brandfbb, @noodles, @fschwarz, @itamarjp, additional notes:
In searching the list for my post, I noticed that this process was started but dropped before: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4L3AMDVZQAEU5RCTK7HZU3S5DSWKDLOC/
I'm not interested in maintaining these packages, and would encourage users to migrate to gss-ntlmssp (and the GSSAPI) for their NTLM needs. I'd also encourage them to migrate off NTLM entirely because it's insecure, but I'm trying to be realistic :)
This is a ticket for the Fedora's Policy for nonresponsive package maintainers.
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue tagged with: nonresponsive maintainer
+1
@fschwarz I suppose you would take over some of the certbot packages?
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue assigned to jhogarth
I'm not interested in maintaining these packages,
👻
I could do it if necessary. Otherwise certbot-sig or @nb might be a good choice?
certbot-sig
Also to be fair: I think you should not consider certbot-related bugs (~8) as "neglected by James". I created some (mostly to write down tasks I planned to do) and James just happened to be the default assignee or they are "new version" tickets which are currently handled by @nb.
I would take the certbot packages. python-acme certbot python-certbot-apache python-certbot-nginx
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=3159 — last build a year ago :( @jhogarth has a small kid... I hope he'll be back at some point. But for now, we need to reassign the packages.
Hi I'm here ....
Still alive but life has taken a difficult turn of late.
I'll be back about active at some point soon(TM) but right now I can't promise when that activity will be.
I fully support anyone that can take over any of my packages to do so and I hope to be back about before too much time has passed.
Take care guys
@jhogarth Thanks for the reply.
@fschwarz @nb Should I reassign some of the packages to either of you? If so, please give me a list.
@rharwood is there any action wrt maintainer ship you'd like to be taken?
@churchyard please reassign to me (unless @fschwarz would rather be main admin, which is fine with me)
python-acme certbot python-certbot-apache python-certbot-nginx python-pyrfc3339
Giving rpms/python-acme to nb Giving rpms/certbot to nb Giving rpms/python-certbot-apache to nb Giving rpms/python-certbot-nginx to nb Giving rpms/python-pyrfc3339 to nb
Not personally. My hope is that the ACME stack finds good hands (as it looks like it has). To reiterate from #c0, I think the NTLM packages should be dropped from the distro so that we only have to be concerned with one NTLM implementation in Fedora.
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Hi @churchyard, was this closed by accident? It doesn't seem invalid to me.
Metadata Update from @rharwood: - Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)
You said there is no action wrt maintainership to be taken.
I think the NTLM packages should be dropped from the distro so that we only have to be concerned with one NTLM implementation in Fedora.
Not sure what can we do here via nonresponsive policy.
I see. I thought you were asking if I had maintainers in mind for them, and the answer to that is no.
As this is a nonresponsive maintainer ticket, my intent is to follow that process: that is, to have packages orphaned.
To move this forward, would it be OK if you became the maintainer of those packages and immediately retired them?
That is also fine.
Is there something that prohibits us from going the normal route and orphaning them, though?
That is also fine. Is there something that prohibits us from going the normal route and orphaning them, though?
@rharwood Mostly that orphaning them will still leave them in the distro until the orphan timeout. Since we know it needs to go away, someone should just go ahead and do so right now, rather than waiting.
@churchyard OK, could you orphan the packages? The additional weeks of delay don't matter that much, let's get this done.
Done.
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue tagged with: pending announcement
Announced: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MB4WMSNEP2QMZLXTEB5RJMBXM2T64SGT/
Metadata Update from @zbyszek: - Issue untagged with: pending announcement - Issue close_status updated to: Accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.