On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:09:33 +0200 Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> wrote: > On 2013-04-02 11:09:35 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > This is indeed Debian’s problem and needs discussion, but the roots lie > > in upstreams. It mostly comes down to the fact that upstreams of a > > growing number of projects are not able to synchronize their releases so > > that a single set of versions can all work together. > > > > Personally I think the best way to alleviate that problem would be to > > reduce the set of packages that are included in a stable release (and > > that also means in testing). But that is a high price to pay for the > > sole benefit of making releases easier. > > If neither upstream nor the Debian maintainer of some package is > active and the package is rather buggy (e.g. with RC bugs not easy > to fix), I don't think that the package should be in stable. Whilst there are packages which are in that state and some of those can be removed, it isn't possible to remove such packages when there are multiple reverse dependencies. We cannot remove every package where both the maintainer and the upstream are inactive without also removing a lot of packages which have active teams. Equally, active teams don't have the bandwidth to take on the workload of all of their inactive dependencies. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpK6foBugUR2.pgp
Description: PGP signature