Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?
On 01.02.2018 05:18, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>>> For example
>> Here is another example of a low-quality RM bug; removal at request of
>> the maintainer, with no reason stated.
>> As a result of this, DSA has to resort to stretch or snapshot.d.o for
>> out-of-band access to our s390x machines.
> As the FTP team member that processed that removal, I can tell you I think
> it's perfectly fine. I don't think the FTP team should be in the business of
> second guessing maintainers that say their packages should be removed.
> If it's important, someone who cares enough should re-introduce the package.
Oh wow, I didn't realize x3270 got removed. :(
As a user I'd be deeply disappointed by that removal bug because it has
zero context. I do feel like there should be at least some. It's fine to
say "RoM, dead upstream". But to provide literally no reason is not.
I agree that you shouldn't second-guess, but I think you can at least
enforce some comment to be present. As someone who now ponders to
re-introduce the package I have zero context as well as to why the
package got removed and if it's sensible to re-introduce it in the first
(Note that nothing here is intended to assign some kind of personal blame.)