Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Sorry about the long delay. I had to fix real life in the mean time.
> Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I got a few responses stating
> that moving packages to project/orphaned semi-automatically would be a
> bad idea. From what I've seen active maintainance of packages assigned
> to debian-qa is the exception, not the rule.
I can't see that orphaned packages are maintained that bad. It's not good
if a package is orphaned, but at least RC bugs are handled fast by
debian-qa.
Hopefully all orphaned packages will be adopted so we won't have to
discuss this any more. ;-)
> Attached to this mail is a new report which addresses particularly
> this:
>
> > How do you plan to handle packages that are used by others?
>
> This is far from perfect, but for the most part it's right. If you
>...
Your report doesn't handle the dependencies if a source package has
binary packages with other names. E.g. dpkg-scriptlib builds the binary
packages dpkg-perl and dpkg-python that both have reverse dependencies,
but your report doesn't list any reverse dependencies for dpkg-scriptlib.
> Suggestions welcomed,
>
>
> Marcelo
cu,
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Reply to: