On Tue, 2002-01-01 at 12:51, Egon Willighagen wrote: > Yes, wether it is after 1 or 2 releases... IMHO, i think it is important that > the Debian Project should decide what is good for the distribution... all > packages that do not meet 'our' standard can be moved into "unstable" > and being in unstable for some time, they move into the section > "unmaintained", which is not part of the dist, but is part of the Debian > archive... Wouldn't packages suspected of being unmaintained be better off just but into an "unmaintained" section or be given a priority of "orphaned" or "unmaintained"? That way the package won't be moving about in the archive, only the override file is altered. This also gives an easy to pick up indication to the user community that something is happening to the package that might affect quality. The effect will be immediate upon the equivalent of ``apt-get update'', to more or less degree depending on whether section or priority was changed. Thus, first the package is given a lower priority. "orphaned" if that is the case or something like "outdated", if the package is just seemingly ageing. Secondly, the package is moved to another section: "unmaintained". Thirdly, after awhile with nothing happening and no one reporting on it the package can actually be moved to unstable; whereafter it possibly dies. If the package is indeed in use someone is bound to write an anxious email or file a bug report along the way, letting us know they are using it.And, of course there should be some sort of reporting to developers about which packages are moving this way. Perhaps membership to this, supposedly, very low traffic list could also count as a criterion of who is active and who is MIA? -- Lars Bahner, http://lars.bahner.com/ Nihil est sine ratione cur potius sit, quam non sit.
Description: PGP signature