[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#673040: [adept] Short descriptions displayed instead of extended descriptions



On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:20:50 -0400
Filipus Klutiero <chealer@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Don't do severity ping-pong. adept is orphaned, so I lowered the
> > severity as part of the QA team. You, as submitter, must provide
> > justification for the severity.
> 
> I just did that - adept is unfit for release with this bug.

I find that questionable but as nobody else has bothered to do much
about adept, it's not worth fighting over it. It's orphaned, it has
bugs, nobody is showing any sign of dealing with the existing bugs. I've
filed for removal from Debian. #673085

> [...]
> >> adept is a package manager, displaying wrong descriptions makes it unfit
> >> for release.
> > Not true - it is a bug but as long as adept can install packages from
> > the package names and get the dependencies right, upgrade packages and
> > remove packages, it is basically functional.
> >
> >> For reference, see #657557
> > That's for the www.d.o website, not a package! Completely inapplicable.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are describing as inapplicable.

Comparing a pseudo-package for a website with a package in the archive
is just inapplicable. There's no basis for comparison.

> I'd expect:
> Users to avoid trying adept

Nothing to do with the severity of any bugs, that has been happening
all of it's own since 2009 according to the popcon graph.

> Developers to notice that adept needs love

That hasn't happened all the time adept has been orphaned (5 months),
it's not likely to happen before the release.

> The release team to remove adept from testing, if it can't find love

No point just removing from testing.
 
> > Do you want to have it removed from Debian completely?
> > Orphaned bugs rarely receive bug fixes, more likely that someone will
> > seek to remove the package. adept has already missed the Squeeze
> > release by being removed before that release. If it's going to miss
> > Wheezy as well, it probably is worth removing from Debian entirely.
> >
> >
> I won't say that adept should be removed from Debian completely. As a 
> KDE user curious about package management, I find adept interesting to 
> try. Until it's fixed, it could have a place in experimental.

No. That requires an upload and there's obviously nobody willing to do
it. Experimental is for packages where there is some development
ongoing, not bitrot stuff which has nobody to maintain it.

> But 
> realistically, adept was started in 2005, never made a stable release 
> since then, is still beta (for KDE 4) and was discontinued over 3 years 
> ago. I wouldn't expect a stable adept too soon, and doubt it's worth to 
> have more NMUs. I found this bug with 10 minutes of testing - obviously 
> nobody's used it since 4 months.

So all your bug report has done is to have brought removal closer. OK,
that's what happens with RC bugs in orphaned leaf packages more often
than not. So be it.

#673085

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpazBk_AV9_j.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: