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

Re: Orphaned packages with very low popcon numbers



Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Luk Claes wrote:
>> How can we be sure the packages are of decent quality if almost noone
>> uses them? How can we be sure there are (almost) no unreported RC bugs
>> for instance?
> 
> If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a
> sound?
> 
> How can you be sure there are no unreported RC bugs in the popular packages?

It's all about the likelihood...

> In other words, if almost no-one uses them, does it matter if the packages
> are of decent quality?  Also, if almost no-one uses them, how do you know
> they're of bad quality?

It does matter if they are of decent quality as we need to support them
(mirrors, infrastructure, security support etc.). I don't say they are
of bad quality, don't turn my words...

> I think you should be looking for some additional metrics for package
> removal, such as age, date of last upload, for example, in addition to size
> of install base, before deciding that a package is stale.  (Because IMHO, if
> a package has no bugs filed against it, you can't honestly say you want to
> file for removal because it's potentially buggy.)

Note that besides not being used by many people, the packages are
orphaned and will be tested to the points:

>>> (a) aren't ITAed, and
>>> (b) have been orphaned for more than, say, three months
>>> (c) don't have some special reason why popcon would be unrepresentative
>>> (d) don't have any other special reasons to stay in Debian

Cheers

Luk

-- 
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint:   D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7   F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: