[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned

On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Hi,
> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.

Not having a caring maintainer is not equal to not being autobuilt. Given 
the fact that for those non-free packages I maintain, some have been 
autobuilt at _some_ point

> bass
Don't touch this unless you are willing to work on it, thanks

> lmbench

> satan

Now, I really don't remember seeing a mail on d-announce saying that
autobuilders would not build non-free packages, but maybe I've missed it. 
Since I don't see in the Policy or Devel's reference [1] why/when this
changed I don't intend to play the game and start begging autobuilders to
do what they have previously done before. Now, this was discussed in -devel
[2], with no consensus AFAIK.

If you think that QA would do a better job at mantaining these packages
(which I don't) please do explain yourself. I find it funny that some think
that we should not waste inexpensive (autobuilders=machine) resources in
non-free packages but we are willing to waste expensive (QA=people)
resources in them.



And please don't tell me it shouldn't be documented because both the Policy 
and Reference talk about non-free. 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: