Re: On the removal of yaclc
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> (Look at http://udd.debian.org/bapase.cgi?t=o for the list I'm using -- or was
> using: I must admit that I got rather demotivated after Joey Hess' blog
> post[0])
>
> [0] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/the_fate_of_the_orphans/
I don't think it should have demotivated you. It's just pointing out
known deficiencies in our processes... ideally we should try to find new
maintainers more actively but this rarely happens when a package is
orphaned with WNPP bug that is not advertised to -devel or any other list
where new maintainers could pick it up.
Removing the package is more likely to have people react. And it's best to
do it at the start of a cycle like you told so that a new maintainer can
reintroduce in time.
It's way better than the opposite scenario: package is unmaintained, gets
a RC bug just before release, is removed, only to be reintroduced in the
release after.
So +1 from me to continue more aggressive removals at the start of the
cycle.
> But generally, this raises the question of what we want for Debian. Do
> we want:
> (1) to package everything that was ever released as free software,
> accepting that we can't do it while maintaining a high quality for our
> packages?
> (2) to restrict ourselves to packages that are known to be useful to at
> least some people, but to ensure that the packages are of reasonable quality?
We want the best of both: as much free software that we can reasonably
support.
> So, the real question is: why don't you adopt it, or provide a patch to
> devscripts to integrate it in there?
+1 In particular if it's low maintenance as you seem to suggest it.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)
Reply to: