On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 02:32 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:28 AM Clement Verna
<cverna(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 15:06, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was looking for information on the future of the packages
> > application[1]. I didn't see it mentioned in the commblog post[2].
>
> Currently the application is in a kind of maintenance mode (in reality I don't
have much time to look at tickets). This application is really valuable and used a lot,
but the big problem is the technology stack it is built on TurboGears2 and making an heavy
use of Moksha (
https://moksha.readthedocs.io/en/latest/), while TG2 is still active
upstream, this is not the case with Moksha and some of the TG2 dependencies the
application has. The effort to move away from these 2 framework is quite high and I
don't think we currently have the cycles for it.
>
> My personal opinion is that we should really try to consolidate on src.fp.o and
instead of investing time in porting packages to more recent technologies we should put
that effort in adding the missing features to src.fp.o.
>
If we lose the packages app, we'll lose the only way to search for
binary packages. src.fp.o only shows source package names, and most
people aren't going to know what those are.
FWIW, a feature of the packages app I use *all the time* is
bugz.fedoraproject.org/<packagename> . I can do everything I use that
for in other ways, sure, but it's a fantastically helpful shortcut for
finding and reporting bugs in <packagename>.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net