Re: Development standards for unstable
Thomas Viehmann <email@example.com> 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?
>> 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
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich