Re: >2000 packages still waiting to enter testing, > 1500 over age
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 03:10:46PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Michael Banck]
> > I object. Not entering testing could very well happen if the
> > package's dependencies are broken/buggy/uninstallable.
>
> Yes, there are many reasons for a package to get stuck in unstable.
>
> But I believe it is the maintainers responsibility to make sure his
> packages do enter testing, and if he fail to do so for _300_ days, the
> package is not well maintained and can probably be removed.
Well, things are not as black and white, it is not so easy to check that
your packages are ready to enter testing, and what is holding them up,
and what you need to fix for them to be ready.
As an example, we the ocaml maintainers, have had a mini-freeze,
starting from december or so, and all our packages are now ready to
enter testing, and are just hold back, i suppose since i have no way
of really knowing, by postgresql and libvorbis. Postgresql is out of my
depth, i cannot help all that much about it, and libvorbis is a valid
candidate, but his installation would break 107 or so packages in
testing, and i have not really the intention to check by hand all those
107 packages. I believe it is just some packages that need to be rebuilt
due to the libvorbis0a thingy, not sure though. I already checked the
primary dependencies of all our packages (around 40) by hand, which
is a pain.
The removal of 2 packages from testing would solve this blocking, and i
have already filled a bug report for it and cced my reply to aj (bug
#187155), but i have not yet had any kind of reply on this. Granted, it
has only been 8 days since i submitted it, so i just will have to wait
some time more.
That said, any further work on these packages is currently halted, as we
want to wait for the testing migration of them.
So, asking for removal of packages is in some case a good thing, altough
i agree that unconditional removal is not the right way to go about
this.
> > Anyway, common sense should be (and is, by the RM,) applied.
>
> Of course.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: