This bug is part of the non-responsive maintainer procedure for sjenning, following https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/. Please respond if you are still active in Fedora and want to maintain pam-u2f.
Hey Arthur, I am not as active as I would like to be these days and would welcome any help maintaining the package. Also, I can't find the email you sent back in June re: devel mailing list. Not sure what happened there.
Hi Seth, Thanks for answering! I understand that. I would love to (co-)maintain the package, let me know what you prefer! :) About the email, maybe it ended up in spam, but that's fine. I would've followed up, but I completely forgot about it.
(In reply to Seth Jennings from comment #1) > I am not as active as I would like to be these days and would welcome any > help maintaining the package. If you (realistically) will no longer have time to maintain the package(s) (and I certainly understand that supporting openshift/k8s may take up 120% of your time) the best approach may be to orphan them ( https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Orphaning_Process/ ), and let others pick them up. I can assure you that for pam-u2f there are a couple of interested parties (Arthur and myself) :-). Or, perhaps, add me and/or Arthur as a co-maintainer (I already maintain libfido2, which a newer pam-u2f version will depend on). FAS userid: gtb Thanks.
I just granted both of you commit access on the package.
Thank you Seth. I've updated the spec. Since this is a big upgrade, a confirmation from you and/or Gary is useful. :) Following the fedora update guidelines, I would only update for f35, let me know if you think f34 should also be updated. http://bols.dev/pam-u2f-1.2.0.spec I think this issue can be closed, or should it be addressed differently?
(In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #5) > Thank you Seth. Agreed, thank you Seth. > I've updated the spec. Since this is a big upgrade, a confirmation from you > and/or Gary is useful. :) > Following the fedora update guidelines, I would only update for f35, let me > know if you think f34 should also be updated. > http://bols.dev/pam-u2f-1.2.0.spec Sorry, it looks like I stepped on top of your work (which looks a lot like mine :-) when I got the "granted" email I started the process to update, and did not see this note. I believe the build(s) have already completed. Sorry again. My approach for such bigger version updates is to "release" it to rawhide (F36) and let it settle for a bit to see if there are any reported bugs. Backporting to F35 can come later if no issues identified in F36 (I admit I do not test with rawhide very often, so any testing done by me may take some time). I have mixed feelings about F34 (no one complained voraciously, so maybe it is not really an issue). > I think this issue can be closed, or should it be addressed differently? I concur, and will close this as other such bugs (NOTABUG) as the maintainer has, indeed, responded. Thanks!