Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 04:26:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>
> 195 days is a lot of time to have an important package orphaned. At 6 or
> so months of "orphaned-ness", if a maintainer is not found, one should and
> IMHO must look at the very real at that point possibility of going on
> without it. If this necessitates further changes as in removal of an
> entire architecture, then I'd say that it's time to shit or get off the
> pot, to use the vernacular. It can't be too damned important if nobody
> steps up and adopts it for ~6.5 months... ATM, though, it's not a real
> issue, but I think that in addition to the bug horizons, there needs to be
> a wnpp check on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless
> adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died
> during the potato freeze...).
silo (0.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=low
* New upstream
* Took over silo's packaging
-- Erick Kinnee <cerb@debian.org> Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:23 -0500
No one knew it was on wnpp you idiot. As for your "adopt or die",
bullshit. Packages are not removed unless they present too many bugs to
stay in. Silo had no bugs above normal, only 6 bugs in all, 5 of them
were closable as is (already fixed), and the last was wishlist.
Put up or shut up (to use your unique vernacular), because if you
haven't got anything useful to say, you are just pissing people off.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: