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

Re: Unmaintained Debian packages section&BTS tags

On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:19:43PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I propose that an unmaintained archive of Debian (& non-free) packages be
> created. This archive is to be kept separate from Debian just as non-free
> is.

I propose that such packages be removed instead. Any developer can
always resurrect the package.

Before anybody bites my head off, I do not propose that a package be
removed simply because it's unmaintained. That would be just as bad an
idea as moving it to a separate archive simply because it's
unmaintained; it would introduce instability for no good reason.
However, long-term unmaintained packages should be considered as being
up for removal if there isn't a good reason to keep them.

> In my (would like) to do list that I posted to debian-user a while ago I
> said:
> "Why are packages removed from the archives? There are many reasons, but
> sometimes it's hard to find out. There should be some way of recording
> this especially for those who track unstable on an infrequent basis.
> Perhaps an entry into the Debian BTS under the package name?"

As you say below, there are:


These are sufficient, IMHO. I use them frequently when processing bugs
filed against unknown packages.

> * http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt 's list of reason types is
> good, however simple sometimes the reason for a request is imho not good
> enough. For this reason, unless their are legal problems, the original
> package source and diff *should* be kept somewhere.

They are already stored in the morgue on auric for a period of time.

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: