Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing
[No CC please, thank]
Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:23:37PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Lenny is now out, so I think it is time to decide how to proceed with
>> what was discussed during DC8. Is the release team still ok with the idea
>> of keeping orphaned packages out of testing? how should it be done? via
>> severity: serious bugs and, possibly automated, auto removal hints? some
>> other way?
>> In any case, I think waiting a week since a package was orphaned before
>> it is removed should be enough time in case a package is marked as
>> orphaned by "mistake".
> This was *not* decided during DC8 or anything.
It was agreed (as in some agreed, nobody objected) on the first or second QA
meeting during DC8. IIRC Luk was there (although I don't intend to mean
that he represents the whole team or anything else). That's why I *asked*
the RT directly, to confirm that the idea could be considered.
> And especially not such a
> crude "one week of orphanness is enough time" rule.
I should have clarified more, sorry. It was moreas: "at least one week, and
not when a daily cronjob runs".
> After all, they
> should be adopted, not dropped at first sight.
The idea was to leave them out of *testing*, not immediately dropping them
from the archive. I agree with your opinion that they should be adopted,
but by leaving them out of testing we could increase the perception of the
real situation: your foo package depends on bar, which is orphaned, you
should adopt it either on your own or on a team, or find somebody who
An real life example would be with gtk+ which was still shipped in lenny
despite being unmaintained for years (Debian and upstream, both); and the
maintainers of packages that use gtk+ don't care much about that but they
don't want to drop their packages either. With this proposal somebody would
have to adopt gtk+ so that it can be released, otherwise gtk+ and its rdeps
would stay out of the release until something else happens.
The idea of my email was to get an "ok, we are open for the proposal" from
the RT and discuss it further.
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net