Re: Orphaned packages in testing which were never in stable
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It takes, what, twenty minutes to upload a package with the Maintainer:
> field changed? A few hours every couple of months are enough to keep
> it fairly adequately maintained. If the packages aren't worth that much
> time from anyone, they're not worth keeping.
Hmm, you do not honestly want to tell me that "Maintaining" is equal
to uploading a package with correctly set maintainer field. It is
caring about bugs, updates etc. I just fixed most of the zope-*
packages and it would be easy enough to set the maintainer field to
my email address. But I do not have the time to *care* about the
packages.
> It uses up disk space on auric and the mirrors,
You do not really want me to say that these some packages will eat
relevant disk space on auric and mirrors.
> it clutters the BTS,
I just subscribed the packages I mentioned in ppt so I also just
get a notice and would *try* to care about bugs - but this is no
*maintainance* in my eyes.
> it makes the WNPP harder to manage, it makes update_excuses harder
> to follow...
This is a valid argument in my opinion - but no reason to remove
completely.
> Also, "the knowledge how to package them bug free" is rarely
> particularly valuable.
For beginners those packages are valuable. I tried to put in all
my knowledge about packaging Zope-Products into these packages,
introduced debconf (which all packages should do). I would be
very upset if a new maintainer started from scratch with one of
those packages without debconf.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: