Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes: > On 13/06/07 at 11:19 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: >> * Lucas Nussbaum (lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net) [070612 23:17]: >>> On 12/06/07 at 22:23 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >>>> unstable is meant for packages that should be in the next stable release, >>>> as such only packages that are in the maintainer's opinion ready to migrate >>>> to testing should be uploaded to unstable. >>> Then shouldn't we have a more aggressive policy about removals from >>> unstable, for packages that have failed to get into testing during the >>> past n months ? >> We have that policy, just nobody who does the QA-bits needed to make >> that happen. > What would be those QA bits ? Automatic checks and reports. > It would be easy to get the list of packages that haven't reached > testing in the n months (and have been in debian for more than n months). Yes. One would just need to do it (and decide some basic rules)... > I could even work on that during debconf, but then, there's the problem > of knowing who has the authority to remove packages from unstable. Such > tasks don't get you a lot of karma points, so, if removals are not > requested by someone with authority (release team or ftpmaster), this > will probably result in a lot of flames. I think that a package that has been in unstable for a whole release cycle without entering testing should probably live in experimental or not in Debian at all. I guess that is something most people can agree on. Marc -- BOFH #337: the butane lighter causes the pincushioning
Attachment:
pgpbvh2CaBNCz.pgp
Description: PGP signature