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

Re: duplicates in the archive

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:18:00PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:48:43 +0000
> Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 24 juin 2012 à 20:42 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit : 
> > > > What makes 42 window manager acceptable but not 43?
> > > 
> > > Who said 42 is acceptable?
> > 
> > The neglected ones should be removed.  If they're all well maintained and all
> > used, then 43 is acceptable, in my opinion.
> There is general agreement that neglected ones should be removed, it
> just comes down to someone doing the work and making that assessment.


> If
> you're interested, file the RM bugs in time for wheezy.

You question those 42 implementations, so you can analyse them, file RM bugs
where appropriate, and write a justification for rejecting #43.

> Feel free to re-use a similar measure/approximation for "neglect" as I
> blogged about for the measure/approximation of "rubbish". (Linked from
> my homepage below.)

If that text reflects consensus, then feel free to make
http://qa.debian.org/howto-remove.html point to that text.

> With any objective analysis of the current 42, I find it impossible to
> believe that all 42 would re-qualify.

Good, you seem to have already started with analysing those 42 implementations.

> Of course, someone who wanted to introduce #43 may be the person in
> the right place to do the analysis. 

This person "may be in the right place to do the analysis", but I don't think
that this person must do that analysis.

> It isn't a small task - if it doesn't get done for wheezy it's not that
> bad but

The coming freeze period may be a good time for spending time on removals by
anyone interested.

> it does seem justified before #43 arrives.

It is not bad/wrong that you want that analysis to be done now.

> I'd expect that the
> process itself shows that #43 isn't actually needed at all and that
> whatever is desired can be achieved by patching one of the existing
> ones.

Yes, the analysis may result in the conclusion that #43 is not needed in
Debian.  But please don't reject #43 just because nobody (not you, not the ITP
submitter, not any volunteer) has compared it with the 42 other


Bart Martens

Reply to: