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

Re: removal instead of orphaning?

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 11:40:03 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:

> On 26-08-16 23:40, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > off the top of my head:
> > - it's wasting time of anyone doing QA work
> > - it's wasting time of any user who looks for a piece of software to
> >   do
> >   $stuff and gets to eliminate all the noise from unmaintained
> >   probably-broken cruft
> These were indeed the two items I was mostly thinking of. I felt the
> pain of the first item last year with the dh-python migration at
> Debconf. 

Speaking about [perl, in my case] transitions, in my experience
orphaned packages are less annyoing (I can just do a QA upload, where
I can fix whatever I want) than
officially-maintained-but-de-facto-neglected packages where I do
minimal NMUs, and then again next year, and then again the year
afterwards, etc.

(I know, the answer to that is salvaging^Winvolving MIA and getting
the packages orphaned; I just wanted to point out that orphaned
packages are not that much of a burden in all cases.)


 .''`.  Homepage https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -  https://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Beatles

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Reply to: