On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:58:55PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > * 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. Even if we don't apply the letter of our rules about NMUs and hijacking to effectively orphaned packages, there are wnpp-alert and how-can-i-help that directly use our official wnpp marks to show the packages in need of help. There is also a filter on the UDD bug list and maybe other places. There can be (or there are?) some metrics about the archive state. > Frankly, I would have been tempted to let a lot of those packages slip > out of stretch. It depends what they were, of course. I was following an advice received on IRC: if a package has a popcon of even 20 then most likely there are 20 people who will benefit from the fix. > 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. That sounds correct. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature