Re: removal requests of unattended RC buggy packages?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:26:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm trawling the list of build failures on various architectures, and I'm
> finding packages that have never, ever been successfully built on an
> autobuilder from day one, in spite of bug reports being filed early and
> often, e.g.: nemesi, bug #303075. What should be the policy for requesting
> removal of such packages? I think two months is more than enough time for a
> maintainer to get their act together before having the package bounced back
> out again. Anyone disagree?
On the one had I agree -- the package was in that case only not
rejected from NEW because the ftp-master didn't try to rebuild it.
But typically, when some package is too buggy and the maintainer
doesn't fix it, one wants to do something about that maintainer in
general (including in this particular case). I'd like to take this a
bit more general, that if some package is left buggy for a certain
period of time, with no maintainer activity, it can get orphaned (and
on the opinion of QA, then removed if that sounds sane).
In the case of nemesi by the way, it has no real-life maintainer, so
can and will be orphaned immediately, thanks for noting. Someone else
should then reassign to ftp.d.o to get it removed because it's too
buggy, because I don't want to do the whole process of asking for
removal and then doing it all by myself to prevent misjudgments.
So, basicly, my opinion is: 'it depends'. If you have a list, feel
invited to send it to -qa :).
Thanks,
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: