Adam Borowski wrote... > Thus, I'd like to propose a new kind of wnpp bug: "Intent To Remove". Sounds like a very good idea. For me, I could automatically parse these and check against the list of packages installed on my systems, or are used to build packages (thanks for .buildinfo files) outside the archive. > After filing the ITR, if no one objects in a period time, the bug would be > retitled to Ro{M,QA} and shoved towards those guys wearing hats with "FTP" > written on them. Such a period could be: > * (if we decide to CC ITRs to d-devel): short: a week? > * otherwise: long: 6 months? The short period, but not *that* short. I'd expect any reaction will be pretty soon but allow people to be offline for a week. In the situation where removal is obviously the right thing to do, waiting months is mostly horror. > We could have an offshot of wnpp-alert notify you if a package you have > installed has been ITRed. Perhaps even this could be installed by default, > so users in stable of obscure packages have a chance to act. Certainly, packages to be removed from (old)stable in a point release should go through that procedure aswell. > However, ITRs wouldn't be mandatory: the majority of packages can be removed > outright; you'd file an ITR only if you believe there's some controversy. For this I'd prefer to have a guideline so this isn't entirely left to the submitter's discretion. It boils down to "do no harm". So removing cruft like NVIU certainly can do done straight ahead, while ROM/ROP/RoQA should get some audience and time. > One issue: on a small screen, crap font and no glasses, "ITR" looks similar > to "ITP", an alternate acronym could be better. Removal Intent for a Package? (jk) Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature