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

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

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Josip Rodin wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 10:20:23AM +0200, tomas p wrote:
> >
> > 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.

And on Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Junichi Uekawa wrote:

> I'm interested in whole of Debian rebuilding from source.
> These packages are a burden to me.

I understand. Which brings me back to the proposition I made before.
Wouldn't it be better to just have some kind of way to _tag_ unmaintained
packages, so that f.ex. QA can look at the package and then just
decide: "this is not an important package, we'll not bother with it" and
leave in unstable without paying any more attention to it. Similary for Junichi
Uekawa who could just say: "I'm not building unmaintained packages".

And in case there are packages that _are_ important and unmaintained, then
solving the problem by just letting them drop out of Debian automatically
would be problematic anyway.



Reply to: