Re: Work-needing packages report for Feb 23, 2001
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 10:51:45AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> >...
> > > It's either that or ask for an override, which means that when and if
> > > the package gets adopted you have to ask for a change again, which puts
> > > more work on the shoulders of ftp admins. I rather put more work on
> > > the shoulders of a machine. What is that? That I'm going to break
> > > packages by doing this? That they won't autobuild anymore? See
> > > closing comment on previous paragraph.
> >
> > Agreed that it's far from ideal (a mess).
> >
> > How about the following Best Practice then:
> >
> > For Orphaned WNPP packages;
> > After a period of 28 days they should have an upload made to set
> > the maintainer to Debian QA.
>
> That means you want to put work on some people to get the bug reports to
> Debian QA where they belong to. I think it's the best when the old
> maintainer does an immediate upload with the maintainer set to Debian QA.
Actually I think that makes a lot of sense for old maintainers to
set it to QA.
The obvious exception being MIA maintainers.
>
> >...
> > In ALL cases, discretion should be used. The goal is not to
>
> What do you mean with "discretion should be used"??? I always thought
> Debian was an open project and that "We Won't Hide Problems"?
I only mean that I am only proposing these as guidelines, and not as
being set in stone. i.e. "Best Practice"
>
> > systematically exterminate wnpp packages from the archive simply
> > because they're declared wnpp, but rather to have some reasonable
> > process of having wnpp packages slip away.
> >
> > Please comment on what you think would be better lengths of time.
> > I am not proposing an automatic removal system, I want to emphasize
> > this!
> >
> > But I do think that if we can all agree on guidelines for
> > handling WNPP packages we might be able to deal with them more
> > efficiently. ITA's for example, should expire. Lots of people don't
> > adopt things because "some other guy is doing it" when in fact he has
> > forgotten/abandoned it long ago.
>
> Please always remember your "I am not proposing an automatic removal
> system": The guidelines are only guidelines for people that look into a
> WNPP bug before they do an action.
It shouldn't be automatic because each case is different. It wasn't
my intent to plan for every single possibility, only broadly define
some guidelines. And like I said, I welcome commentary on this,
think it should be done differently? say so. think it doesnt make
sense? has big problems? say so. I just think some kind of "floating"
policy for wnpp would be helpful in dealing with them /better/.
--
Brian Russo <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <wolfie@lpsg.org> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply to: