Re: "removed" Debian packages section&BTS tags
I meant to revise that line to say that I will eventually consult with
Debian-qa as to how to better track why packages are removed from the
archives.
Your point on the misconception about unmaintained packages being removed
needs to be added to my proposal. I still believe that it would be useful
to have programs like the one you mention available somewhere via apt and
yes, it sounds like it should be removed (and added to "removed"<g>).
Drew Daniels
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 04:10:20PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > ****I will (eventually) consult with debian-qa as to why unmaintained
> > packages are removed from unstable.
>
> Currently, they are only removed if there are other problems (and I
> don't suggest changing this, although perhaps others have). There seem
> to be some serious misconceptions here.
>
> I'm going to suggest the removal of some orphaned packages soon. A
> sample is epan, which has not only been unmaintained for some time but
> also is non-free, has no source code, no upstream, and has a better free
> alternative. If you think it's being considered *only* because it's
> unmaintained, you're mistaken; being unmaintained essentially means that
> the QA group ends up deciding whether it should stay in the archive,
> since nobody else wants to.
>
> --
> Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: