Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Hi Luk! Hi Bas > You wrote: > >> This is only the starting list, there were other criteria [1] mentioned >> already a couple of times before a package would be filed for removal! I >> don't get why that has to repeated every time again? >> >> [1]: >> (a) aren't ITAed, and >> (b) have been orphaned for more than, say, three months >> (c) don't have some special reason why popcon would be unrepresentative >> (d) don't have any other special reasons to stay in Debian > > Yes I know that, ans as I said before, I think that these criteria are > not strict enough. IMO, only _obsolete_ [1] packages should be removed from > Debian, not jsut any package that happens to be orphaned but is > otherwise working perfectly fine. That would just be annoying our users > for the heck of it. I could maybe agree for maintained packages, but these packages are orphaned... The user would not be annoyed as they can just use their packages as before as long as they still work. New users of these packages would however be annoyed to find that the package they use is not maintained... > [1] i.e., packages that nobody (==0 users in popcon, not 20) uses, > packages that can be easily replaced with some other package, > or packages that are buggy or otherwise unusable. If that is > exactly what you mean by your point (d) above, fine with me, but > please put it explicitly in your list then. No, that would be good for packages that are maintained IMHO. Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature