Re: Handling of poorly maintained and useless packages
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 08:46:22AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Saturday 13 October 2007 09:22, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> > Perfect example of a useless buggy package in debian. Anyone needing
>> > dak uses the svn snapshot because the one in the archive is old and
>> > deprecated.
>>
>> I think you are on a wrong track here. It might be an example of a poorly
>> maintained package. But it would be very useful if anybody needing it
>> could just install the latest and greatest package without needing to go
>> to svn.
>
> It would be very interesting if a recent svn snapshot of dak would be
> packaged _yes_. I merely say that the one in the archive is useless even
> to the very few people using a dak setup.
>
Popcon says 9 installs, 3 votes[1]. And according to the graph[2] seems like
the top number of, reported, installations was 19 around January. And 8
votes in October last year.
Packages such as dak and debian-policy should demonstrate the good
maintenance of packages. But for example, debian-policy has FTBFS when
building twice in a row[3] and according to the policy debian/rules:clean
should undo any changes made, which is the reason why a package would
FTBFS. Note that I'm not trying to raise a conversation on that specific
topic, but about the quality of the "main" packages of Debian.
[1] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=dak
[2] http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popcon-graphs/index.php?packages=dak
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/424212
Reply to: