Re: Orphaned packages in testing which were never in stable
* Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [20020416 15:35]:
> This isn't any easier on anyone than just sending a single bug
> report to ftp.debian.org saying "these packages are unsuitable for
> release", and it's a lot more of a nuisance since those bugs have to
> be closed individually.
You always claim that filing a serious bug on the package is the
appropriate procedure. I have never seen you mentioning ftp.d.o for a
way to get packages out of testing. Also, you were informed how I'd
do it, and didn't say a word about filing one bug against ftp.d.o.
18:50 < tbm> aj: if I don't want a package to release with woody but keep
it in unstable, I file a rc bug on it, right? tagged woody or not?
18:51 < aj> tbm: file a serious bug on it explaining why the version is
unreleasable at present in the maintainer's opinion, don't tag it
13:14 < tbm> aj: do you agree with the removal from woody of the packages I
posted to -qa? If yes, I will file serious bugs soon
13:15 < aj> tbm: i'm not really convinced by "never in stable" as a
justification. "orphaned for x00 days" seemed much more convincing.
An "and, btw, file on bug against ftp.d.o, not individual bugs" here
would surely have helped. BTW, feel free to close the bugs; a listing
is below.
> Further, it's still not clear why these packages should be kept in
> sid, if they aren't suitable for woody and no one is interested in
> maintaining them.
There was no time to announce the removal from Debian altogether and
give people enough time to respond. As I said in my original message,
it has to be sorted out after woody is released.
BTW, filing individual bugs gave people the option to close them if
they don't agree. For example, Daniel Stone wants epic4-script-light
to be released while Matt Zimmerman responded it's good not to release
with tulip. OTOH, I agree that individual bugs are not perfect, but
it's what you told me to do!
* #143002: aktion should not release with woody
* #143003: srecord should not release with woody
* #143004: tkstep8.0 should not release with woody
* #143005: zope-pythonmethod should not release with woody
* #143007: zope-renderable should not release with woody
* #143008: zope-zcvsmixin should not release with woody
* #143009: zope-zieve should not release with woody
* #143010: dcl should not release with woody
* #143012: giram should not release with woody
* #143013: icqlib should not release with woody
* #143014: kicq should not release with woody
* #143015: kinkatta should not release with woody
* #143016: luci should not release with woody
* #143017: qub should not release with woody
* #143020: dcethreads should not release with woody
* #143022: gnome-build should not release with woody
* #143023: gnome-debug should not release with woody
* #143024: eventfolder should not release with woody
* #143025: freedce should not release with woody
* #143026: gdl should not release with woody
* #143027: odb should not release with woody
* #143028: rmc should not release with woody
* #143029: sarg should not release with woody
* #143030: smupsd should not release with woody
* #143031: tulip should not release with woody
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: