Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>...
> 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 outdated because it tries to keep up with the functionality in rtin,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 dead upstream, I can imagine the package is outdated already.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?
First there are some packages (e.g. xarchie) that are dead upstream but
still usefull.
Second: Yes, I do plan to go through the list of orphaned package at about
one month before the next freeze to upload new upstream versions. I won't
do this for packages where it's too much work, but there will be many
where I'll do that (I prefer uploading new upstream versions before the
freeze instead of backporting fixes from the new version while the
freeze).
> 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.
You are right, but please discuss these packages debian-qa and don't
remove them automatically.
> 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: