Re: "removed" Debian packages section&BTS tags
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> Having BTS entries for removed packages is useful, however perhaps
> a flag is needed for them to reduce the work of Debian-qa and other bug
> squashers. Currently bugs are closed [1] on removed packages. For this
> reason I would like there to be a tag for "removed" packages, to be called
> "removed" and I would like their bugs to remain open on the BTS.
A separate flag is not strictly needed since one could just say:
Maintainer: This package is currently unmaintained
A related issue is that the original package still has Section:/Priority:
in it, which AFAIK would have to be changed if moving the package into a
different archive.
So changing the maintainer field and/or the section would require
re-uploading the package with those changed.
> The perceived negative aspects of such an archive are:
[...]
> *More work would be created for the qa group (but the archive is separate
> and people who get from the "removed" archive should not expect the
> support of the qa group).
I'm not certain. Currently everything is QA unless someone really drops a
package from Debian alltogether.
This way QA could easily and quickly decide without causing much pain to
anybody whether they think it's necessary and useful to still maintain a
package. But I think QA's opinion'd about this is relevant.
> *More bandwidth will be required (not a significant amount if they are
> removed for what users believe is legitimate reasons. If significant
> bandwidth is used for "removed" packages then perhaps the package
> shouldn't have been removed?)
Since aparently not many packages are getting dropped right now, the
impact would probably be minimal.
*t
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Pospisek
SourcePole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
http://sourcepole.ch
Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (81) 330 77 11
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: