Bug 2143712 - Non-responsive maintainer check for cottsay
Summary: Non-responsive maintainer check for cottsay
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: hackrf
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Scott K Logan
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-11-17 15:59 UTC by Steven A. Falco
Modified: 2022-11-17 18:27 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-11-17 17:48:22 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Steven A. Falco 2022-11-17 15:59:34 UTC
This bug is part of the non-responsive maintainer procedure for cottsay, 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 hackrf.

Comment 1 Scott K Logan 2022-11-17 17:48:22 UTC
I've always thought that step 0 for these types of situations should really be "offer help". Straight to blasting the devel list seems a bit dramatic.

That said, I've clearly neglected this package. I'll add you as a co-maintainer, as you've requested.

I also updated 1941132 with the downstream rebuild that I attempted a few months ago. I think we'll need to rebuild all of those packages as part of the bump here.

Comment 2 Steven A. Falco 2022-11-17 18:09:55 UTC
I followed the process I found at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/ which said step zero was 1) file a bug and 2) email the devel list.

My apologies if that was incorrect.  I certainly didn't mean to overstep the process.

And thanks very much for adding me as a co-maintainer.

Comment 3 Scott K Logan 2022-11-17 18:12:20 UTC
> My apologies if that was incorrect.  I certainly didn't mean to overstep the process.

I intended to critique the process, not your actions. No need to apologize for following directions :)

Do you have hardware for testing this package?

Comment 4 Steven A. Falco 2022-11-17 18:22:40 UTC
Thanks for clarifying - I've never used that process before, and I agree it might be too aggressive. :-)

And yes - I have a HackRF One:

$ hackrf_info
hackrf_info version: unknown
libhackrf version: unknown (0.5)
Found HackRF
Index: 0
Serial number: xxx
Board ID Number: 2 (HackRF One)
Firmware Version: 2018.01.1 (API:1.02)
Part ID Number: 0xa000cb3c 0x006d436a

I'll try building the 2022 code - actually, Richard has already built it for rawhide as part of bug 2113439 so I'll start with that.  I didn't check yet for dependencies, so the list you have will be very helpful.

Comment 5 Scott K Logan 2022-11-17 18:27:43 UTC
> I have a HackRF One

Great!

> I didn't check yet for dependencies, so the list you have will be very helpful.

It doesn't look like the SOVERSION changed, so a rebuild of downstream packages isn't strictly necessary, but probably a good idea to try to uncover any regressions early.

Good luck!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.