Re: only release packages that have maintainers?
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release are
> > > ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA?
>
> This isn't such a bad idea.
>
> >
> > Then I'll adopt all the packages that don't have a maintainer and send
> > RFAs for them (like I did with several of the packages tbm wanted to
> > remove). But I take care about them when the maintainer is set to Debian
> > QA, too, so I can't see the big difference.
>
> Yes, well as I've said to tbm, 1) adopting a package just to 'save'
> it, without really caring/wanting it just perpetuates old crufty
I care about these packages:
- they have no open RC bugs
- I fix all other bugs I can fix without spending too much time
- they have all a Standards-Version <= 3.1
(that means their Standards-Version is higher than the one of 25%
of the packages in Debian!)
> packages in Debian, while some of these ancient neglected packages
> are just.. neglected, others are genuinely useless I think,
> otherwise would someone not have cared, and grabbed it?
I remember that "silo" was orphaned for several months before someone
adopted it...
> Which brings me to 2) can we get rid of more of these old crufty
> ones? Everyone is so afraid do this, else they'll get flamed for
> being evil and removing old packages! indeed the impertinence.
>...
How do you decide if something is "old crufty"? I believe that of "Our
Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" and that's why I want that
there's a good reason when a package gets removed.
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
Reply to: