[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?

On 01/02/18 10:45, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 01/02/18 09:45, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>> On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>>> Andrej Shadura writes:
>>>> On 31/01/18 21:01, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>>>>>> Here you go, there's #871004 for you. Missed jessie, stretch,
>>>>>> not in testing, no uploads since the beginning of 2017.
>>>>> I don't think you'll get much sympathy for a package being removed
>>>>> from unstable when it hasn't shipped with a Debian release since
>>>>> Wheezy, and has continuously been out of Testing for 3.5 years.
>>>> True, it hasn't. But if you look a little bit closer, you'll see both RC
>>>> bugs it had were quite trivial to fix: two sourceless files (would be
>>>> fixed by linking them to the packaged versions instead), and an failed
>>>> attempt to download a build-dep (actually, fixed by an NMU while fixing
>>>> another bug, just never marked as done).
>>> So there was plenty of time to fix them.
>>> Why would filing a third RC bug (the "proposed-RM") and waiting one
>>> month more change anything?  Why would someone turn up to fix them now?
>> Why not? I *was* already doing just that, but with an RM bug filed
>> elsewhere, I was unable to know it's about to be removed. I would have
>> reacted and closed it before the package's got removed.
> Doesn't the PTS^Wtracker service already do that? I.e. notify when an RM bug is
> opened. At least it warns on the web interface, and I think I have seen email
> notifications about it too. So you only need to subscribe to those packages that
> interest you.

I hope you're not going to suggest I subscribe to bug reports for each
and every package I value so that I don't miss a potential removal notice?

I'd much prefer something like what we already have for WNPP stats. By
the way, if the ITR proposal is implemented how it was originally
suggested (against WNPP package), ITR bugs will probably be
(semi)automagically included in the reports at no additional effort.


Reply to: