Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned
>> Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> writes:
> Orphaned packages list debian-qa as maintainer. That means all bug reports
> go to debian-qa. There are several people that take care of these packages
> and try to fix bugs (e.g. the recent security problems in ntop).
> When you say these packages are non-interesting: There's noone who wants
> to maintain them at the moment. Does this mean that there are no users of
> these packages?
The way I see it, this is an argument in favor of moving the packages
to project/orphaned. In the list I just mailed it reads:
| Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 91
| Total number of orphaned packages: 86
that's 86 packages "someone" is taking care of. I need to mix and
match Packages with the BTS database, but I don't think the number will
be much lower, and I fear it might increase. Let me make some specific
dotfile (68092), 50 days orphaned
Rev Depends: dotfile-rtin dotfile-elm dotfile-bash dotfile-procmail
dotfile-ipfwadm dotfile-fvwm1 dotfile-tcsh dotfile-fvwm2
First of all, the real age is ~ 10 months. Such a package becomes
outdated because it tries to keep up with the functionality in rtin,
elm, bash, procmail, ipfwadm, fvwm1, tcsh and fvwm2. Unless dotfile is
dead upstream, I can imagine the package is outdated already.
python-mxdatetime (68596), 46 days orphaned
Rev Depends: task-python-dev python-popy
I don't know if this is really the case, but this needs to be kept up
to date with the python packages. Is debian-qa really doing this?
My point is, while I trust the people in -qa to do their job, there's
some ammount of slack that needs to be removed. I favor removing that
slack automatically, but I'm eager to be convinced otherwise.