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

Re: Development standards for unstable

Thomas Viehmann <tv@beamnet.de> wrote:

> Well, maybe the actual situation would be better reflected if one of the
> interested parties adopted the package and retitled the O bug to RFA?

Sounds right...

>> Therefore I don't think that merely being orphaned is a good criterion
>> for removal; especially not until we make sure that all unmaintained or
>> badly maintained packages are in fact orphaned.
> Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the existence of more
> packages that should be orphaned invalidates dealing with those that
> presently are.
> There's 169 orphaned packages today, why not do something about them?

What I meant is that we would start removing moderately buggy, well
usable packages (just because they are orphaned), but keep badly buggy,
unmaintained packages with lots of annoying bugs - just because nobody
has orphaned them, or because the maintainer only shows up to tell
people to keep their fingers off the package.

When browsing the BTS for a particular question, I frequently run into
packages where I think "this looks like unmaintained".  But often I
don't have time to check whether this is really true.  I assume others
experience the same, and therefore you can't expect every problematic
package to be discussed with care and actually orphaned if found

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Reply to: