This bug is part of the non-responsive maintainer procedure for fale, 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 asio.
I'm here. If you want to co-maintain asio, I can give you access. What's your FAS name?
Thanks for responding. my FAS name is belegdol.
PS: Also I'm not the main maintainer for it, so the request is wrongly addressed. PPS: The first point of non-responsive maintainer list is to check if the person has been active lately, and I have been, so if you would have done that, you should have seen that I'm active, so no real point on the procedure
I'm made you admin. Be aware that upgrading asio might create a lot of problems, so be very aware and cautious with it.
> I'm made you admin. Be aware that upgrading asio might create a lot of > problems, so be very aware and cautious with it. Thank you. > PS: Also I'm not the main maintainer for it, so the request is wrongly > addressed. > > PPS: The first point of non-responsive maintainer list is to check if the > person has been active lately, and I have been, so if you would have done > that, you should have seen that I'm active, so no real point on the procedure I have seen that you and Davide have been active lately (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855652#c35), but given the lack of responses until today, I was not sure what else to do. My understanding of the non-responsive maintainer process was that is it package and not necessary maintainer-specific. You may be active, but no longer interested in maintaining a given package. (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4) > I'm made you admin. Be aware that upgrading asio might create a lot of > problems, so be very aware and cautious with it. Do you have any particular problems in mind? I have rebuilt all the dependencies (of which there are actually only seven it seems) and things are looking good. I am doing another rebuild against 1.24.0 right now. In any case, if there are problems, these need to be addressed by the respective maintainers and upstreams at some point, or a compat- package might need to be created. We cannot keep asio at 1.16.1 forever.
> > PPS: The first point of non-responsive maintainer list is to check if the > > person has been active lately, and I have been, so if you would have done > > that, you should have seen that I'm active, so no real point on the procedure > > I have seen that you and Davide have been active lately > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855652#c35), but given the > lack of responses until today, I was not sure what else to do. My > understanding of the non-responsive maintainer process was that is it > package and not necessary maintainer-specific. You may be active, but no > longer interested in maintaining a given package. The process is only for maintainers that are not active and non-responsive in a general term. In this case, for instance, if you would have asked in that bug report to get permissions on the package you would probably have gotten them a couple of weeks ago ;-). The reason behind this process is to ensure that the maintainer is completely non-responsive before involving the sysadmins to override the maintainer in giving access to third parties. > (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4) > > I'm made you admin. Be aware that upgrading asio might create a lot of > > problems, so be very aware and cautious with it. > > Do you have any particular problems in mind? I have rebuilt all the > dependencies (of which there are actually only seven it seems) and things > are looking good. I am doing another rebuild against 1.24.0 right now. That is exactly the thing ;-). If every dependent package is being rebuilt (and rebuilds properly) then you are good to go! > In any case, if there are problems, these need to be addressed by the > respective maintainers and upstreams at some point, or a compat- package > might need to be created. We cannot keep asio at 1.16.1 forever. Yes, but be aware that those changes have to be done at the same time/before pushing the update (to avoid breaking packages), therefore you will need coordination with those maintainers. For those reasons, usually asio gets updated only in rawhide.
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #6) > > > PPS: The first point of non-responsive maintainer list is to check if the > > > person has been active lately, and I have been, so if you would have done > > > that, you should have seen that I'm active, so no real point on the procedure > > > > I have seen that you and Davide have been active lately > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855652#c35), but given the > > lack of responses until today, I was not sure what else to do. My > > understanding of the non-responsive maintainer process was that is it > > package and not necessary maintainer-specific. You may be active, but no > > longer interested in maintaining a given package. > > The process is only for maintainers that are not active and non-responsive > in a general term. > In this case, for instance, if you would have asked in that bug report to > get permissions on the package you would probably have gotten them a couple > of weeks ago ;-). > The reason behind this process is to ensure that the maintainer is > completely non-responsive before involving the sysadmins to override the > maintainer in giving access to third parties. Noted, thank you for clarifying. > > > (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4) > > > I'm made you admin. Be aware that upgrading asio might create a lot of > > > problems, so be very aware and cautious with it. > > > > Do you have any particular problems in mind? I have rebuilt all the > > dependencies (of which there are actually only seven it seems) and things > > are looking good. I am doing another rebuild against 1.24.0 right now. > > That is exactly the thing ;-). If every dependent package is being rebuilt > (and rebuilds properly) then you are good to go! > > > In any case, if there are problems, these need to be addressed by the > > respective maintainers and upstreams at some point, or a compat- package > > might need to be created. We cannot keep asio at 1.16.1 forever. > > Yes, but be aware that those changes have to be done at the same time/before > pushing the update (to avoid breaking packages), therefore you will need > coordination with those maintainers. > > For those reasons, usually asio gets updated only in rawhide. I would only update rawhide, and maybe f37 if there is no fallout. Having said that, do the packages actually need to be rebuilt, or is it enough to ensure that they do? asio only provides a -devel package, there is no runtime library available.
(In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #7) > I would only update rawhide, and maybe f37 if there is no fallout. Having > said that, do the packages actually need to be rebuilt, or is it enough to > ensure that they do? asio only provides a -devel package, there is no > runtime library available. Due to the fact that asio is just a library, all dependent packages will need to be rebuilt to be able to affirm that you have done the update. Also, not rebuilding them would create a potentially inconsistent situation, so yes, all dependent packages will require a re-built. Often the "dependent packages" is a tree of packages, not only the direct dependencies, but also all their dependent packages, etc.