Re: Orphaned packages with very low popcon numbers
Hi Luk!
You wrote:
> > 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...
ATM, the support costs of removing the packages are much bigger than
just letting them sit in the archive.
> > 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
Well, I could agree with removing packages if, in addition to the cited
citeria:
(i) there are RC or important bugs (or many normal bugs)
or
(iia) there are very few users (in the bottom 1% of popcon number or
so, not sure how much votes that would translate to, 20 sounds a
bit high IMO), and
(iib) there are replacement packages in the archive that deliver
similar functionality.
In other cases, IMO, it's a lot of work to check and remove the
packages (both for the QA and the FTP teams), without any real gain for
the project.
--
Kind regards,
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: