On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 03:53:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 06:23:58PM +0530 schrieb Nilesh Patra: > > But I also strongly belive in removing software that no-one is using. I agree > > that our packages usually have low popcon values, but if some package is _never_ > > gonna be used, > > How can we know? We can't, which is exactly the reason why I started this thread in the first place :) > I simply trusted Steffens insight he has put into the > spreadsheet[2] and have put Steffen in CC to confirm. In case he agrees > that pinfish is not needed any more we should mention this in this sheet > and remove the package accordingly. I agree. BTW I wonder if we should get rid of the spreadsheet and document it somewhere else so it is accessible a bit more widely? I have a feeling that the said spreadsheet is ``somewhat'' hidden from rest of the debian and it'd be cool to have everyone take a look at it and/or propose to make modifications. > > and is abandoned upstream, I think it is an absolute waste of > > my time to keep maintaining it. Frankly, I'd do something else. > > This is not the first package abandoned upstream - we have even packages > where you can find the source only in webarchive (and for sure > debian.org). I am aware of it, because I have worked on many of such packages, and I still think that even these packages _should_ be removed if _no one_ is using them. I find it tasteless to burn so much of developer time on things that are no longer relevant. OTOH, there are packages that need updates with new upstream releases and keep waiting which in my opinion is a much more impactful than fixing RC bugs in packages that have sources purged upstream (: We already have so many packages so we probably need same/less number of packages (not more) > > This is a go package and you have told me several times that you aren't the best > > person to work on golang-related tasks, most recently on -hpc list[3] > > That's correct. But we have packages in haskell (phybin) and D > where I'm even worse. But that does not mean that you go on adding yourself to _even more_ of such packages/tasks where you are not fully comfortable. I believe you'd like to keep such a list of unexplored territories to a minimum, as it's wise to do so. > > So if going forward a bug is reported against pinfish, you'd probably have to spend > > more time on it that you'd like. > > I'd prefer to wait with removal until we have the situation of such a > bug that might cause real trouble. Again, I do not see a lot of point in keeping something 'limping' to the point when it gets completely un-recoverable. The situation with pinfish mayn't be too bad, but I don't see a point in waiting for an RC bug to be filed against it some day or the other and _then_ asking for it to be kicked. What is even worse is that the RC bug is somehow easy to fix, someone fixes it and uploads and we end up maintaining it for even longer, when in principle it might simply not be worth the effort at all. > > So I don't think just exchanging names is a very optimal thing to do here. > > > > If I don't hear from Steffen, or no-one raises an objection in the next three weeks, I'll > > proceed to file an RM bug. > > Steffen??? @Steffen, if you are reading this, a quick reply would be appreciated, really! > > > > [1]: https://github.com/nanoporetech/pinfish > > > [2] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tApLhVqxRZ2VOuMH_aPUgFENQJfbLlB_PFH_Ah_q7hM/edit?ts=5eb957ba#gid=543782716 > > [3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-hpc/2022/08/msg00020.html -- Best, Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature