Re: Bug#835533: dasher: Please package Dasher 5.0 beta
On Thursday, October 06, 2016 11:40:12 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > I do read the "work-needing" mails, so I would have seen it. There was
> > no single mail on the debian-accessibility list about dasher. I didn't
> > know it got removed from testing or even that help was requested. Had I
> > known it, I would have moved for sure, or at least post a request for
> > help on debian-accessibility.
> > So it's not active fighting indeed, but from the point of view of a11y
> > people it *is* definitely fighting to have to realize that something
> > again has fallen down, and have to spend energy into putting it up
> > again.
> > The case of a11y packages is very particular: their popularity is
> > irrelevant, since some people simply *need* them to be able to do any
> > kind of work with Debian. Just dropping the package from Debian, saying
> > that people who need it will install it by themselves, actually means
> > just killing the package: how will the user know about it? How will he
> > manage to install it not through the package manager while he is already
> > struggling with using the computer?
> > So if some of these packages is falling down, the debian-accessibility
> > team *has* to be notified so we can find a solution. Maybe we should
> > put in the ftp-master process that an RM request for any kind of
> > accessibility-related package shouldn't be processed without an ACK from
> > the debian-accessibility team?
> These kind of issues aren't specific to removal of accessibility
> packages; people doing Debian package removal rarely do any due
> diligence work before filing removal bugs. Personally, at minimum I
> would like to see removalists contacting PTS/tracker/DDPO subscribers,
> upstream, any related Debian teams and any related Debian derivatives.
It's extremely rare that a removal is problematic. It does happen and in
cases where it does, the FTP team is generally happy to expedite a package
back through New.
Speaking only for myself, I think the level of work implied in your request
translates into removals don't happen. If you think this work should be done,
I encourage you to comment on the removal bugs requesting that the removal be
held in abeyance while you do it (also adding a moreinfo tag is helpful).