[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: removal requests of unattended RC buggy packages?

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:51:55AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> 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?
> Not much.  Could you make it 3 or 4 months for sponsored packages?  I
> can see waiting for an upstream fix for that long, instead of bugging
> a sponsor to "test" a fix, manually or automatically by uploading.
> Especially when a release has been imminent for some time now.

We're talking here about an RC bug that is 100% the maintainer's fault.  If
it were a sponsored upload, the sponsor should also have his hand smacked
with a ruler.  Moreover, I don't think that's an excuse for not replying to
the BTS -- and even if it were, I don't think it warrants not cleaning out
crufty packages that should never have been allowed in to begin with.  If
someone fixes the package, it can always be re-uploaded.

> What do you mean "bounced back out"?  Do you mean removed from
> testing?  That seems fine.

No, I mean kicking it out of unstable.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: