Re: How to get rid of unused packages (Was: proposed MBF: packages still using source format 1.0)
Am Wed, May 04, 2022 at 08:02:51AM +0200 schrieb Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues:
> 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.
I'd like to stress (again) that this is not really in contrast to my
opinion. I was *first* reading the description and *afterwards* checked
those technical data. If the description would not have made me
suspicious I would not have asked that question. Since probably nobody
with QA interest is reading the description of packages regularly we
might need to go the reverse route to find removal candidates.
(If someone needs another proof that I do not really want to kick imgvtopgm
I agreed with Eric to do a team upload of this package into the Debian Photo
team once netpbm has passed new. ;-) )
> 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?
I fully subscribe your question and think we should maintain a list of
those removal candidates (which can be easily obtained from UDD).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: