Re: Orphaned packages in testing which were never in stable
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 01:59:04PM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> Hmm, you do not honestly want to tell me that "Maintaining" is equal
> to uploading a package with correctly set maintainer field.
No. What I'm saying is that no one cares enough about these packages to
do that.
> 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.
If they're being well enough maintained by -qa, then they shouldn't get
removed from either woody or sid.
> > 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.
No, the fact that they're not being maintained is the reason to remove
them completely.
> 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.
Then when someone comes around with an ITP, you can mail them your diffs
and everyone can be happy.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: