[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:20:23AM +0200, tomas p wrote:
> > > > If maintaining it doesn't actually require any work as you suggest,
> > > > then why would you object to being the maintainer?
> > >
> > > He is not saying that at all. Just existing is effort mind you.
> > > Nothing else is needed. Add additional taks as f.ex. being responsable
> > > for s.th. or maintaining attention for something increases that
> > > effort. Even if you do not "do" anything.
> >
> > Interesting.  This is exactly the argument for removing unmaintained
> > packages: just by existing they cause more work for certain people.
> I assume naively that it's mostly software (bts, mirroring, etc. ) that
> takes care of those packages. In what way do they cause work for people
> that are not directly interested in those packages?

Each of those packages is another notch on the list for QA maintainers, the
WNPP list maintainers, and eventually unknown-package@qa maintainers.
It's not a lot for one package, but it piles up very quickly. The concern is
IMHO very legitimate.

     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Reply to: