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

Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:11:31AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
> > > Op di 27-01-2004, om 04:08 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
> > > > Maybe we could make a list of packages that should be autobuild in
> > > > contrib/non-free and distribute that to the buildds.
> > > 
> > > No, we couldn't. The only requirement for a package to go into non-free
> You can make a "positive" list of software that would not be of any
> problem to anyone, but there might be problems in that gray area.

I think such a positive list that a bunch of people and debian-legal
have check would be nice. Even if its just as a guideline to people
that get asked to compile something.

> [...]
> > > > > >- FTBFS or RC bugs
> > > > > Don't include packages with "Keep this out of testing" RC bugs.
> > > > 
> > > > Too lazy to look at every package, sorry.
> > > 
> > > That's OK, but then don't start pointing fingers. Thanks.
> > 
> > I will get them when I run through unclaimed packages in details. For
> > the list i just assumed that anything kept out of sarge for a reason
> > like being a unstable release or cvs snapshot would get updated more
> > frequently than 100 days. Whats the point of a cvs snapshot otherwise?
> > I know its not perfect, already removed 2 packages I previously didn't
> > spot.
> You shouldn't have included them in the first place.
> If you send a mail to a developer claiming he's not doing his job well
> (which is exactly what you did), you had better be damn sure you're
> right. If you don't do that, you'll be pointing fingers to, and
> accusing, people who don't deserve it. That's the best way I could think
> of to demotivate a volunteer, and could, worst case, result in those
> leaving the project. Is that what you want?

I didn't want to imply that any one developer from that group is not
doing their job well. All I said is that the packages are not actively
pushed into sarge by the maintainer or users. I ratteled the cage a
bit saying they look orphaned to me and I'm sorry if any maintainers
pride is hurt and he feels personally attacked. That was just cage
rattling and no attack on any of you that care for their packages.

Some packages in the list have perfectly good reasons for not
being in sarge, some don't. I'm sorry for the few that got cought up
in there. If the patch for debbugs for a machine readable interface
had been added to debbugs I could have quickly checked every package
for "keep me out of sarge" bugs.

Some maintainers didn't know non-free/contrib isn't autobuild and
never noticed or investigated whats blocking their package. Those have
been reminded.

Some packages should have been purged, like w3-el was now or where
orphaned but not correctly. 18 out of 71 confirmed packages will get
orphaned, removed, adopted or replaced. Thats 25% of the packages. And
thats just packages with an active maintainer.

There are even packages in there with a NM waiting to take over but
needing a sponsor, which he seem to have found through this action.

> If you start pointing fingers at people for not maintaining their
> packages right -read: for being lazy- then make sure that's not
> something people can say you are.

I don't consider listing such a large group as pointing at any one in
particular. A group will allways have some black sheep, some white
sheep and a lot of grey sheep. Again, I'm sorry if any one feels
personally attacked. And I thank those that found the mail helpfull
already and hope the rest can forgive me for rattleing the cage a bit.


Reply to: