Re: Development standards for unstable
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>I think that not shipping unmaintained and unsupported packages is a
>>benefit. Packages need a maintainer to enter, I think they should need
>>one to stay.
> You wouldn't say that if you were a user using an orphaned package ...
Well, I've been in the situation to dig out an old package from an old
stable release a couple of times. I think this is far preferable than
making unfounded claims that the packages is properly supported.
> I'm sorry, there's no "global answer" to orphaned packages. Sometimes they are
> obsolete and should be dropped. Sometimes they're not and we should try to
> find maintainers for them.
We do try. We send mail about them every week.
The question is: is it worthwile for Debian to ship and support these
packages? I'd say for packages with no maintainer for, say, three
months, we just need to say no. Just like RFPs being closed if noone
picks them up, orphaned packages should go. Mere consumers can only have
limited influence on volunteer projects.
A large part of what makes Debian great is that packages are maintianed
by people taking an interest in them.
So yes, I claim that "drop them after three months with no interest" is
an appropriate answer to orphaned packages.
> If we can't find maintainers inside Debian, we
> should look in the upstream community around the software and use
> adequate infrastructure :
> http://wiki.debian.org/CollaborativeMaintenance
> Of course, it's easier to say than to do and I have only 24 hours per day.
Sorry, Raphael, I appreciate you're effort to promote and enable
collaborative maintenance very much, but it's not the holy grail solving
all maintenance problems. Packages need maintainers in the same way that
an architecture needs porters.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Reply to: