Re: Orphaning Unbuildable Packages (fpm)
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 11:46:49AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> > > > The packages builds fine on stable but doesn't on unstable and thus is
>
> > > Thus it should be removed from unstable, since upstream is dead, it is
> > > broken, and the maintainer does not want it and won't fix it.
>
> > I didn't disagree. You should read my proposal for a "removed" section and
> > perhaps the alike threads.
>
> > > IF you care about it, adopt it. Otherwise, let it die peacefully...
>
> > The "removed" section should contain only orphaned packages.
>
> What's the point of taking up disk space on all of our mirrors for
> packages that not even the MAINTAINER thinks are worth keeping around?
> It's one thing to keep packages around when someone no longer has time to
> maintain it; but when the Debian developer most familiar with the package
> tells us that it's bad software, he should be listened to.
>
Please read the relevant threads on what the point is. Also please read
the alternate proposal and some interim solutions.
> If you believe an orphaned piece of software deserves to be kept around
> *ON ITS OWN MERITS*, then get involved, speak up, and adopt it.
> Proposals that would tie our hands and require us to become
> sourceforge-like in our dedication to useless software do not benefit
> real users.
>
I'm trying to make it easier for packages to get a second chance. I listed
many reasons why this would be desirable. Thanks for your sourceforge
reference, if you have been following the threads you would have seen my
idea for a sourceforge proposal. Due to the relatively few packages being
removed and the relatively low demand. A "removed" archive would work on
sourceforge. I do however need to figure out how to organize such an
archive and how to automate it's maintained.
Reply to: