Re: MIA maintainers and RC-buggy packages
Andrey Rahmatullin writes ("MIA maintainers and RC-buggy packages"):
> * So: is it a real problem that there are packages that should be marked
> as orphaned but they aren't? Should we spend any effort on marking more
> orphaned packages? If yes, how should we do that?
No, I think this is a waste of time. It it easy to see (eg from the
BTS and tracker) that a package is effectively orphaned.
> * Also: what should we do with packages that are marked as team-maintained
> but are really orphaned?
The same thing we should do with any package.
> When fixing the RC bugs I always looked through other bugs in the same
> package and applied trivial patches to the packaging. I've added
> debian/source/format where it was missing. In some cases I've completely
> replaced the packaging with 4-line d/rules. In at least two cases I fixed
> empty -dbgsym packages.
Your diligence is commendable.
Frankly, I would have been tempted to let a lot of those packages slip
out of stretch. It depends what they were, of course.
> * So, the final question: how much time should pass since the last
> maintainer upload (since removal from testing, since the first still
> unfixed RC bug, how many NMUs should exist since the last maintainer
> upload) to be able to just do a QA upload (without changing the Maintainer
> field as it's prohibited on the https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/MIA page)
> instead of finely-crafting minimal diffs and fixing only things allowed by
> devref 5.11.1?
Any package that got autoremoved from testing without response from
the maintainer should be treated as orphaned. Likewise any package
with an RC bug with no action for months.
In the absence of bugs that "ought to have been dealt with" (which
would include RC bugs and bugs containing good patches, but not
necessarily any other kind of bug) I don't think lack of uploads
necessarily proves very much.
Likewise "only NMU uploads" doesn't necessarily prove very much.
Maybe the nominal maintainer is actively reviewing the NMUs even, but
sees no need to intervene.
If the package is not clearly orphaned I think the best approach is a
QA upload to DELAYED. How about adding the QA team to Uploaders while
you're at it ? :-)
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: