Re: MBF: switching away from homepage pseudo-header
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 02:36:02PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> >> That might also be a sign of packages lacking love, maybe some of them
> >> should be orphaned or dropped instead?
I used the "Missing homepage field in debian/control" on the Blends
tasks pages to enable some QA work which finally leaded to the effect
that we now have all packages in Debian Med that in fact have a valid
homepage (some packages do not have such thing any more) and in *all*
cases the package needed some other polishing for some reasons.
So using the Homepage field as some means to spot packages which are
not maintained for some time seems to be a good idea and thus I would
welcome the MBF effort. If it turns out that some bugs will be fixed
by just dropping the package in question that's a reasonable thing to
do as well.
> Please be aware that not all the packages need a recent upload,
> especially when you consider non-software packages (e.g. artworks,
> sounds and so on). Even lintian does not produce any error when using
> old debhelper or policy versions (admitting the packages is fine with
> the new versions):
IMHO one upload per Debian release with a recent Standards-Version
should be done for every package. It shows that the maintainer is
active and continues to be interested in the package. Given that our
release cycle is > 1 year minimum this is a not too hard request.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: