On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 12:04:03PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote: > 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. I have. I think you're dead wrong. Keeping packages around when the packager believes the software is not worth keeping is a waste of resources. These are packages that already get *plenty* of second chances. If the package is orphaned, there are YEARS of second chances before the package is removed. If the maintainer is requesting the removal of his own package, that's a very clear signal that the package isn't worth keeping; but even so, you have a chance to comment on the bug and ask that the package be kept, IF you're willing to address the problems with it that caused the maintainer to ask for its removal. If no one wants to take over the package within the allotted time, there's no reason to give more "second chances". We are NOT in the business of hosting every junk piece of software ever created, we're in the business of creating a quality operating system. If you really think these packages are worthwhile, either get them while they're still around, grab them from the stable distro after they're gone from unstable, or package them yourself. But don't expect Debian to go out of its way to support a project that neutralizes the only headway we're making against archive bloat. Maintaining a collection of packages for the crappiest software around doesn't require any help from Debian -- alien already does a more than adequate job of that. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpMs3JJsGCBq.pgp
Description: PGP signature