Re: quality assurance for games
On 14 Dec 2012, at 11:46, Emmet Hikory <emmet.hikory@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's important to be careful when processing removals. When
> there is software that is merely old or hasn't had an upload in a while
> (perhaps no active maintainer, perhaps known bug pending a solution elsewhere),
> it's better to keep it.
Agreed, age and unmaintained status are not reason enough to remove.
> Similarly, if something is buggy (but fixable), or
> otherwise needs several hours of work to get into shape, that oughtn't
> be enough to remove it:
Disagree, if buggy and nobody is fixing, the default should be for it to go. Not immediately, but within a process with a deadline, which should be noisy to raise awareness of the default outcome.
> the process of adding software to Debian is
> entirely opaque to most users (and in some cases confusing even to those
> of us who have been doing it for some time),
This is a bug that should be fixed, not worked around.
> and an orphan report isn't likely to come to the notice of those
> who use the software most: only DDs and those who act like them actually
> pay any attention to what is orphaned)
Another bug to fix. Both are hard bugs.
> . And lastly, (and game-specifically),
> when a given package provides a unique plot of some sort, it should only
> be removed in exceptional circumstances, as if it is old with inactive
> upstream, it is unlikely to be revived, and we lose a piece of our culture
> when we drop it from Debian (which may be the last remaining place one can
> download a tarball).
I think cultural preservation is an admirable goal but not one that the Debian os is designed to address, nor should it. Another solution is needed. Snapshots is a good workaround. Perhaps an attic/archive repo. I'm not sure. I care about cultural preservation and the Debian os, I don't want one compromising the other.
>
> Even in these situations, one should take some care: for example, the
> adonthell developers have moved to mostly working on Dun Barethsol, but
> that doesn't make Waste's Edge any less playable or enjoyable (yes, there
> are bugs, and yes upstream only cares in a limited way
I think what matters is the union of upstream and maintainers here. Abandoned upstream is a warning sign rather than a guarantee of a low quality package. If the maintainers become de facto upstream, fine, IMHO.
Reply to: