Re: where to leave info about "bad packages" (in the bapase sense)
On 04/12/09 at 08:37 -0500, Barry deFreese wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 04/12/09 at 09:37 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:38:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >>> Why do you want to duplicate the information between bapase and the
> >>> usertags? I find it quite hard to use usertags to following such complex
> >>> information.
> >> I got convinced recently that we should be more aggressive about removal
> >> requests, also I don't think that such an activity should remain
> >> confined under the "QA hat". Hence I'm trying to make the process more
> >> distributed: as every DD can make an NMU, IMO every DD should feel free
> >> to propose the removal of a crappy package. The process I tried to
> >> summarize is an attempt in that direction.
> >>
> >> Now, I don't want to interfere with the bapase workflow (BTW, is bapase
> >> regularly running? the report link from the wiki was 404 yesterday), but
> >> it surely is not accessible to every DD, since you need commit access to
> >> collab-qa.
> >
> > We could move the .txt file to collab-maint.
> > The way it works is that the CGI at
> > http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bapase.cgi does a "svn cat" of the file in
> > collab-qa to get its information, so it doesn't need to be regularly
> > running (as in cron job).
> >
> > OK. Let's start again.
> >
> > Problem statement:
> > There are some packages in Debian that should be removed from it,
> > because they have become useless, have better alternatives
> > in Debian, do not bring enough value (e.g 10-lines shell scripts).
> > There are also packages who should be kept in Debian, but which were
> > abandonned by their maintainer(s), and should be orphaned so another
> > maintainer can pick them up.
> >
> > Requirements:
> > (1) process to propose and proceed with the removal of packages
> > from Debian, even when the maintainer is unreachable
> > (2) process to propose and proceed with the orphanage of packages
> > in Debian, even when the maintainer is unreachable
> > (3) public processes, to provide effective public review
> > (4) efficient processes (we are talking about 500+ packages)
> >
> > Proposed process (based on the proposal made in this thread):
> > When someone wants to propose the removal of a package, he/she:
> > - file a bug on the package, explaining the reasons
> > + severity: serious (if the package is something we want to remove,
> > it's not something we want in the next stable release anyway)
> > + usertagged debian-qa@lists.debian.org / proposed-removal
> > - wait for at least 50 days, listen to comments made on the bug report
> > - request the removal (if appropriate) of the package by reassigning
> > the bug to ftp.debian.org
> >
> > Additionally, bapase (http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bapase.cgi) is used
> > to track packages in that process. It provides an easy way to:
> > - find packages that have been through the 50-days delay
> > - find "interesting" packages, based on various criterias
> > It uses a text file with more information than what can be easily provided
> > via usertags, so:
> > - people who propose a lot of removals are encouraged to add information
> > to bapase directly
> > - a way to list packages that have had proposed-removal bugs filed, but
> > are not tracked in bapase, is added to bapase.
> >
> > Problem not addressed: we probably need a way for people to report
> > packages that probably need removal. People might not want to do the
> > process themselves. This could be with an additional email alias
> > @qa.debian.org.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Sorry for jumping in late here but as someone who does quite a few
> removals/orphans/etc how is this much different than the current process? (Other
> than moving bapase to collab-maint.
It's basically the same process. The outcome of the discussion should be
something that we could put on http://qa.debian.org/ as a step-by-step
guide to suggest removals. Currently, the process is kind of secret.
> Also, just out of curiosity, why 50 days? Seems like a strange number.
I don't remember. It's just a constant in bapase, we can easily change
that.
> Also do
> you think there will be enough interest to warrant another mailing address?
It doesn't cost much to set it up. So why not do it?
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: