Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> we have a number of packages that were orpnahed 2 or 3 years ago.
>
> I think we should have a process whereby if a package does not get a
> maintainer in a certain amount of time, we remove it from the archive,
> and list them in the wnpp report as "sehcduled for removal on DATE".
>
> That way, if anyone actually does use these packages, they will have
> some incentive to maintain them. If not, they can be removed.
The fact that a package is orphaned does not have any direct implications
on it's quality or usability.
An official Debian release should contain only usable packages. But that
is assured by the fact that a RC bug _will_ remove the package from
inclusion in the coming release.
The "unstable" pool on the other hand is just that. It does not promise
you anything wrt the quality and usability of packages it contains (there
is an unspoken agreement between DDs that packages in unstable should be
usable though). So as long as packages are not completely crap, unstable
is a fine home for them.
IMHO the mechanisms to assure quality are already in place. I don't think
other mechanisms for this particular (non-)problem are needed.
*t
--
to
ma
s
p
Reply to: