Re: Packaged marked for removal -> last chance to adopt them!
Hi,
>> Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> > * Packages orphaned more than 180 days ago will be removed in any case.
>
> Even if there's noone willing to maintain a package there might be users
> (and "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" - you know what I'm
> quoting?) that are using this package. It's all right to remove packages
> that would need much work but if a package is all right I see no problem
> even if it's orphaned for over a year.
This is the same argument presented the last time I brought up this
issue. Last time I was told the QA team takes care of these packages.
Martin just checked the packages marked as orphaned for a very simple
problem, namely an old Standards-Version, and it turns out a large part
of them have very old Standards-Version entries. This can only mean
these packages are unmaintained. For most packages upgrading the
Standards-Version means little work, but as times passes and policy
slowly changes, this accumulates and it makes it more difficult for the
whole project to keep the packages arround. This is not about
particular cases (which is also the argument brought up the last time),
but the general case. Martin's mail clearly asks for people to take
action if the packages are important for someone.
> > Again, these packages will be removed on Sun Feb 4 if no objections
> > are raised before then.
>
> I do object.
Why?
> > dpkg-scriptlib -- dpkg-perl and dpkg-python [#68588]
> > * Orphaned 161 days ago
> > --> This package will be kept.
> > [ Important: tetex-extra pre-depends on this package! ]
> >...
> > fnlib -- special font rendering library used by Enlightened apps [#71565]
> > * Orphaned 122 days ago
> > --> This package will be kept.
> > [ Important: someone with interest in Enlightenment should adopt this
> > package since Enlightenment depends on it! ]
> >...
>
> You say you really want to remove these packages?
Which part of "This package will be kept" is it that you don't
understand?
--
Marcelo
Reply to: