Re: How to get rid of unused packages (Was: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0)
Hi Erik,
Am Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 08:37:28PM +0100 schrieb Erik Schanze:
> Am 16.03.22 um 14:11 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> > I'm not sure whether there are any PalmPilot devices out there. At
>
> Yes, there are still such devices out there.
Thanks a lot for your insight.
> > least the actual *votes* in popcon[1] is down to zero now. The package
>
> I would not trust popcorn at all. It is disabled at installation by
> default and even I does not use it. There is no *real* data base for
> package usage out there IMO.
>
> Even if we would have real usage count, IMO it should not be a rule to
> keep a package or remove it.
As I said to Adrian in my other mail: My argument was not only based
on the absolute number of the usage statistics. I was basing it on
the the curve going down to zero and
> We already have mechanism to exclude packages with serious issue from
> releases. For packages that are not part of one or several releases, we
> could ask the maintainer to fix or remove, that would be fair.
Sure. That's why I kept you in CC. Please also note that I was asking
a general question that should not sound like a "lets remove imgvtopgm"
suggestion.
> > was not uploaded by its maintainer for >10 years.
>
> Yes, because upstream development was finished and packaging was working
> so far. No need for new uploads IMO.
My point was that there are teams inside Debian (like reprocucible
builds or crossbuilding like bug #989953) who file bugs with patches to
a lot of packages. I personally think we should somehow help them to
spent their energy on packages that are worth it.
> > It received an NMU by
> > Adrian Bunk (in CC as well):
>
> I thanked Adrian for stepping in, but had in on my list, too. (Low prio,
> because I didn't see the "serious" on this "policy issue")
I disagree here: If there is some "policy issue" a package should be
fixed soonish. Otherwise you put burden on your fellow developers
(thanking them for this is nice for sure) but delaying even simple fixes
that are creating "noise" in QA channels is not a good idea.
> > Do we have any
> > means to get rid of packages that should be rather removed from the
> > distribution than draining resources.
>
> If the package was not part of one or two releases and maintainer (or
> any other dev) have no interest to fix it, I would agree.
>
> If you use the popcorn count to decide this I would strongly disagree.
I'd like to repeat that I did not used popcon *count* as argument but
popcon *history curve" and way more importantly the main description of
the package. If your insight into the user base says that it is used I
might check for another example - but my question how we could save some
of our teams from working on packages that are not needed any more
remains.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: