On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
>
> > The argument should go the other way round: they should be kept unless
> > there's a good reason to remove them. Yes, I strongly object to your
> > proposal.
> > *t
>
> No package is ever unmaintained. They are either maintained by someone who
> cares deeply for the package, or they are maintained by QA.
>
> Also, the more packages maintained by QA, the thinner those people are spread.
> Plus, keeping packages around that are poorly maintained is a burden on the
> security team.
>
> Debian is not an attic.
the proposal goes like this:
1) iif unmaintained && older than X1 && RC-bugs > X2 remove from debian
2) iif unmaintained && bugs > Y move to unmaintained
packages that are in unmaintained would mean:
* not even QA cares to fix those
* whoever cares about them can pick them up
* users can install them, but it's clearly unmaintained stuff and
experience can vary no quality guarantees are made
As for the status quo of stable: packages that have RC bugs don't get in
anyway. Packages that are in can't be pulled.
AFAI can see, this does not place any additional burden neither on QA nor
on the security team. It lessens the burden somewhat but is not as radical
as automatically pulling unmaintained packages.
*t
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Pospisek
SourcePole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
http://sourcepole.ch
Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (81) 330 77 11
-----------------------------------------------------------