Re: Removing more packages from unstable
On August 20, 2024 12:16:47 PM UTC, Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:12:33PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> >Removing packages that aren't formally orphaned always sounds too bold to
>> >me, though it should be fine if we formalize a process (any process) for
>> >that.
>> >
>> The process currently is file an rm but against ftp.debian.org for removal from unstable using RoQA (remember, we're all QA) explaining the rationale and an FTP Team member will assess it and remove the package if it seems reasonable (the above criteria are quite reasonable in that regard).
>>
>> There are people doing this, we could use more, but it does happen. I've processed lots of these and it's virtually always fine. In the rare case of a mistake, the cost to rectify the mistake is a trip through New.
>>
>> I don't think we need more process.
>
>Oh, I'm sure it's fine both for people filing these and the FTP team, I'm
>worried about reactions from the maintainers of those packages.
>
For those cases, the people who have been doing this will sometimes file a bug against the package as a heads up and then as for the removal a bit later. Of course I don't ever see the ones where the maintainer objects and nothing further comes of it, but my impression is it's rare.
I do recall, at least once, suggesting an upload to experimental to keep the package in the archive, but get it out of the way in unstable. I think that there have been less than a handful of unhappy maintainers. When someone complains, I ask them to reupload the package and give it a priority review in New (usually I also avoid snark about if you want to maintain the package, then maintain the package).
For most of the packages that fall into this category, I don't think maintainer reaction is a major issue.
I don't think we ought to take the human out of the loop and fully automate this as that would be more likely to have problematic results.
Scott K
Reply to: