Re: RFC: moving packages to project/orphaned
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 08:37:18PM +0200, 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 outdated because it tries to keep up with the functionality in rtin,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 dead upstream, I can imagine the package is outdated already.
(dotfile's not dead upstream, in fact, the upstream author wanted me to make
more .deb packages, after I did a few QA uploads of it... but our users
don't seem to be particularly interested in keeping it alive)
> 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.
FWIW, here's an example case for this:
I recently (hm, perhaps not so recently, a few months ago :)
assembled a list of quite old orphaned packages (from the WNPP list),
I think the limit was 5 months, and asked -qa or their old maintainers what
to do with them, suggesting move to project/orphaned. After a short
discussion and a long holdoff period, bug was filed against ftp.debian.org
and ibid removed the packages.
The message was http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa-0001/msg00054.html, and
the number of removed packages was 10. I don't remember the bug #, but it's
archived somewhere under ftp.d.o pseudopackage entry.
I think the removal went pretty well, as I haven't seen anybody complain
afterwards. (yet :)
Whether or not it was efficient enough, I don't know... but it's a start.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: