On Sat, 24. Nov 12:18 Ricardo Mones <mones@debian.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 08:50:04AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: [..] > > Sounds good. But now i'm wondering, why not making the next step and remove > > packages automatically which have been orphaned for more than two years and > > also have a low popcon value for example? If not much feedback gathering is > > required this could be an automatism at the beginning of each release cycle. > > AFAIK, low popcon + certain amount of time orphaned alone are not enough > reasons to remove a package from the archive. They are used as a hints to > help removal when real causes exist, which are mainly RC bugs. In fact i have never found an absolute list of criteria which should apply to removal requests. Indeed it seems everyone uses common sense and is convinced to do the right thing and i like this keep it simple approach. If you search for RoQA; orphaned, low popcon you will find various removal requests by the QA-Team alleging an orphaned package and a low popcon are adequate reasons. All the games in question won't see any improvements in the future because upstream has been dead since 1998 in some cases. Apart from that you should also take into account that the technical quality of a package isn't the only crucial factor. Especially games attract people by their gameplay, looks and fun factor. It's no advertisement for Debian and free software in general if you ship games which look outdated even compared to games from the 90ies. I'm sure this kind of "soft criteria" also applies to other software apart from games. > The amount of time doesn't make the package work worse, and popcon is just unreliable > as lot of Debian users simply doesn't participate. This might apply to certain packages but on the other hand being unmaintained for years doesn't make the package better either. I agree popcon isn't the tool of last resort but it's a good indicator especially if you compare the results with Ubuntu's popcon. > Furthermore, why 2 years? Why not 2 months? How much is low? 10? So you > prefer to leave 10 users without some package for gaining what? In most cases these users can find another equivalent or better package or substitute it. But we gain time and resources. Time that could be spent to focus on other more important packages, time to not have to deal with bugs or security issues anymore or to write documentation, time to guide new contributors and to review their ITAs or even ITPs. There are a lot of people who request sponsorship but can't find a sponsor because he or she is busy fixing bugs in stepbill.app to continue promoting the bogeyman Bill Gates. I agree that we will most likely never find a consensus about time and popcon value. Keeping it flexible and not to make to many rules is sometimes best. > Given maintenance of those is usually very very low I don't see the point, > and to me goes against our much beloved "the Universal OS" motto. Remember > Gandalf's words: Jester was easy, indeed. But other packages can be more difficult. I also think that the universal OS will benefit from less unmaintained packages. > “Many in the archive deserve removal. And some out deserve being packaged. > Can you package them? Then do not be too eager to deal out removals in > judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” > > Well, maybe wasn't talking about packages, anyway... Nice quote, i see your point. I can't admittedly resurrect people, but everyone can reintroduce packages. ;) Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature