Re: Removing RC buggy leaf packages with low popularity?
Hi,
intrigeri wrote:
> libnet-irc-perl [popcon: 386]
See below.
> libembperl-perl [popcon:92]
Oops. Not happy. Will have to look at the current issues. I rely on
Embperl on some of my pages (and worked at the upstream developer's
company until 2006).
There seems a new upstream beta release from 22nd of January at
http://www.embperl.org/downloads/Embperl-2.5.0_4.tar.gz
I'll import it and check how much it helps with the current issues.
Will ping upstream otherwise.
gregor herrmann wrote:
> > libnet-irc-perl [popcon: 386]
>
> IIRC, this RC bug is a bit controversial -- Axel?
Yeah, I consider it a well working module with no issues in Debian at
all except that someone who claims to be upstream considers it
deprecated. (Or said otherwise: I think http://bugs.debian.org/608583
is close to irrelevant if the package has that much popcon but no
bug-reports for years now.)
I've ported hobbit-plugins to libpoe-component-irc-perl and I've had a
hard time to get that as stable as before. (But I seem to have reached
that now.)
I would have been happier if #608583 would have been considered
controversial earlier and we wouldn't have urged others to waste time
in porting away from it. But we're nearly there now. Even barnowl
seems to no more using it. Only munin-node still suggests it as far as
I can see.
</frustration>
> > Do we want to remove the packages with popcon < N from the archive?
> > How about N=50 or 100?
>
> After looking at the list, N=50 sounds like a nice cutoff to me.
I agree, despite I wouldn't use that as a general threshold. It's just
nice for this particular list as there's a big gap between 92 and 38.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
Reply to: