Re: "removed" Debian packages section&BTS tags
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 11:50:08PM +0200, tomas pospisek wrote:
> >Umm - in a way. AFAIK packages end up being assigned to QA if
> >they're unmaintained and if QA gets _really_ sick of them they get
> >dropped. That's why I'm proposing an unmaintained section. QA could
> >concentrate on the packages they care about (for whatever reason that
> >might be) and just push the rest into unmaintained. This would IMHO a)
> >further reduce the work of QA and b) take it out off "officialy supported"
> >Debian, so packages which are unmaintained + have bugs don't put a
> >burden on Debians reputation/quality.
>
> This is just nuts. If it's a junk package that nobody wants to maintain
> it shouldn't be hosted by debian. If it bothers you so much that people
> might not be able to get it, then create an apt archive at
> posipeksjunk.org--there's no need for packages not associated with
> debian to be on a debian server, and there's no need for debian to
> create procedures for hosting packages debian doesn't want.
>
A better solution was mentioned that uses snapshot.debian.org.
"removed" or junk would be former Debian packages and thus would be
related if not directly associated thus this forum. I did suggest an out
of Debian archive and I'll look into getting sourceforge or someone else
to host such an archive. The idea that packages are junk should not be a
unilateral decision.
Drew Daniels
Reply to: