Hi, Quoting Andreas Tille (2022-03-21 11:55:09) > Am Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 08:37:28PM +0100 schrieb Erik Schanze: > > Am 16.03.22 um 14:11 schrieb Andreas Tille: > > > 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. personally, when doing work that affects multiple packages, I concentrate on those that are in unstable *and* in testing. In my experience this weeds out 99% of those source packages that I really shouldn't bother with. I heard from others that they use the same heuristic to spend their QA time on packages that will likely make it into the next stable release. During my last round of mass-rebuilds I unfortunately didn't apply this heuristic and stumbled across src:ants. In contrast to Andreas, I think that even packages without a maintainer upload for >10 years should *not* be kicked out of the archive even if their popcon numbers are down to zero. However, I do not understand why we do not have a mechanism to kick out source packages like src:ants automatically for good. Not because of its low (and decreasing) popcon number but because: - the last stable release the source package was part of, was stretch - its binary package was last installable during the development of buster and uninstallable since then - the source package has four open RC bugs with the *youngest* from four years ago Why do we carry essentially useless weight around for so many years? Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature