[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 07:32:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Forcing Debian to handle a package indefinitely because someone once upon a
> time stuffed it into our hands is also incorrect. 

Well, Debian's not _forced_ to do anything. I tried looking over the
non-free packages that've been orphaned for a long time recently with
a view to removing them with extreme prejudice, but pretty much all of
them have had a QA upload reasonably recently.

> 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.

Matej Vela, mostly YM?

If the QA folks get bored maintaining some packages, it'd make sense
to remove them, but if they're actually being maintained, even without
a proper Maintainer, it doesn't make so much sense. If someone wants
to come up with (and maintain) a list of packages that aren't being
maintained well that QA folks can either fix or say "okay, this package
is pointless, please drop it" that might be worthwhile.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Reply to: