Bug#673040: [adept] Short descriptions displayed instead of extended descriptions
On 2012-05-15 18:19, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:20:50 -0400
Filipus Klutiero<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
adept is a package manager, displaying wrong descriptions makes it unfit
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 was comparing bugs.
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.
adept had RC bugs other than this one since 2009.
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.
I guess it did happen in so far as there were some NMUs to fix previous
RC bugs. Indeed, it didn't trigger a strong and long-lasting love so far.
The release team to remove adept from testing, if it can't find love
No point just removing from testing.
Removing from testing will ensure adept doesn't make it to wheezy in its
current state. But indeed, I wasn't saying adept should only be removed
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.
There are really no package quality standards in experimental besides -
possibly - not to break unrelated packages. Some broken packages keep
being uploaded even to unstable, even though they've been unusable for
years. I didn't say that adept should or would be uploaded to
experimental, just that it could.
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.
That's a fair decision in the current situation. Thank you very much