Re: Debconf QA BOF summary / handling of orphaned packages
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 01:47:23PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Experimental is a development resource and not a dump for packages that
> should not be in unstable/testing. Abusing it sounds like a bad idea, so
> IMO think the current regime with a tad (but not overly) more aggressive
> removal once orphaned packages are more easily accessible seems like a
> good idea.
ACK. It feels wrong to have in exeprimental a mix of orphaned packages and
stuff under strong developement.
IMHO it would be nice to aim at a release without oraphaned packages.
Though with the discussion of a freeze in Dec. this might be ambious.
One has to see where it produces complains from other devs and users
when orphaned packages start to be missing on a larger scale.
Would it make sense to create a list of orphaned packages and start
with blocking them from entering testing (e.g. add a bug of RC priority)
and subsequently remove them, including reverse deps, from testing?
Or has someone already made such lists and played with something like this?
If God passed a mic to me to speak
I'd say stay in bed, world
Sleep in peace
[The Cardigans - 03:45: No sleep]