Re: Orphaned packages that were not part of etch
Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 22 July 2008 21:54, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> You filed a bug against karchiver because it:
> [...]
>> * is orphaned (...); and because
> [...]
>> And because of those reasons we are preventing a package from being
>> shipped in lenny? Is that right?
>
> Yes. It's orphaned. If you really care about the package, please adopt it.
> Thanks.
I do care about the package but as a spare user, not as a maintainer; I
won't put my name on a package I really won't be maintaining the way it
deserves to be maintained.
>
>> IMHO there are many other packages that are better candidates for not
>> being shipped in lenny than the above mentioned example.
>
> Debian is a distribution which is organised in a way that there are
> packages and package maintainers. *Pause*
> Sometimes the latter give up, so these packages are orphaned, Orphaned
> packages which are not picked up by new maintainers IMHO shouldn't be part
> of a Debian release.
Oh really? so we should just say "sorry, no more foo for you" to the almost
22k users who have imlib on their system? also to the 31635 users of
mdbtools, the 3k users of metamail, 34660 of vbetool, 7620 of htdig (which
is a strong dependency of khelpcenter), and so son.
I've nothing against cleaning up the archive; but IMHO packages with no
severe bugs, with active upstreams, and with a good number of users
shouldn't be the target of a 'hard' (i.e. preventing it from being shipped
in stable) cleanup.
DFSG:
> 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.
>
>
> regards,
> Holger
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Reply to: