Re: Changes to the weekly WNPP posting
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 07:31:57AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> [2005-05-19 18:08]:
> > One suggestion might be to include both new entries, and entries
> > that are about to be requested for removal. That seems like it might
> > be useful. What do you think?
>
> There isn't really a way to find out entries which are going to be
> removed soon. However, when I make a large removal run (versus just
> removing one or two packages), I typically post to d-d-a or -devel to
> give people a chance to adopt the packages.
One could decide to let RM: bugs on ftp.d.o always linger a certain
amount of time before processing, for complete removals, in any case.
Those can then be automatically included in such a list, as the format
is machine-parseable. PTS and DDPO support are already there for this,
even. Of course you'll then also see obsolete library versions, but
still. In most cases, those shouldn't ever end up as RM: bug, but in
practice, they will.
I wanted to include this in DWN, but for some reason this section didn't
make it, only the section about recent real removals. I won't be
fiddling with the wnpp announce script in the near future, but if
someone adds this support, I could certainly leave normal removal
requests around for two weeks or so (and retitle appropriately if
needed), knowing that leaving them around *will* indeed notify people of
pending removals.
Of course, also wnpp-alert in devscripts could gain support for this, in
that case.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: