[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 06:56:09PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> > Forcing people to do without a package because one took the burden to
> > care about it freely but is not willing to carry that burden is not
> > correct. It's a problem that respective person has to solve for
> > him/herself, not for the other people.
> Forcing Debian to handle a package indefinitely because someone once upon a
> time stuffed it into our hands is also incorrect. It's a problem that the
> respective users have to solve for themselves by having one of them pick it
> up, not Debian's problem.

Yup, that's also a possibility. Joey H. indirectly suggested just moving
unmaintained packages to some distinguishable place ("contrib" f.ex.) (I
suggested tagging the packages in question - similar idea, different
solution. Joey's is better).

I can see how causing more work for somebody is not a good thing. I can
also see, how not being able to "apt-get install unmaintained_package" is
a loss.

So how would Joey's proposition deliver more work to QA etc.? Wouldn't
that be a valid solution? Moving unmaintained packages into
a section "unmaintained" or plain into "contrib"?

> In the end, it always comes down to those who do the work, and it's obvious
> who's (not) doing work in case of unmaintained packages.

Yes. But it's IMO also important to distinguish whether it's
important/necessary to do any work (for a certain package) or not.

         Tomas Pospisek
         SourcePole   -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
         Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
         Tel: +41 (81) 330 77 11

Reply to: