Re: "removed" Debian packages section&BTS tags

[tomas pospisek <tpo2@petertosh>]

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Colin Watson wrote:

> packages@qa.debian.org, and we maintain 187 binary packages right now.
> That's more than any other maintainer or group of maintainers. (It will
> drop quite a bit when kde-i18n goes to a KDE person and whoever that is
> gets the 30-odd binary packages it generates, but we have more source
> packages than any other maintainer or group of maintainers too.)

Actually - I think if someone's really as interested as to invest time
then there should be no technical problem fetching removed packages and
moving them to let's say junk.debian.com and make them apt-get-able from
there.

And if QA stays reasonably conservative about throwing away packages then
I think there should be no problem. And in case, as you say, the number of
unmaintained packages grows as big as to not allow reasonable QA
maintenance anymore then another solution will have to be found.

> It will obviously create more work for QA, which is why I think it's a
> bad idea. We can't just distribute packages and then say "oh, but we
> don't support those in any way at all"; that would be irresponsible.
> Therefore, QA (or some other group made up from basically the same
> people) will end up doing it. When somebody from the QA group asks for a
> package to be removed, it is typically because they think it has too
> many problems for even QA to maintain it any more, i.e. it should be
> junked altogether.

OK. I personaly think it _is_ possible to have a section that says: this
is stuff that we don't maintain any more and which actually would spare
you time. Clearly if there's f.ex. some security or legal problem about
those packages someone _will_ have to act, so yes, they can not stay
completely without any attention.

*t

--
  to
    ma
      s
        p