Hi Markus, On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 01:27:31AM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > 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. That those requests existed doesn't justify they were correct, anyway from what I've briefly seen most of them also add the "dead upstream" factor you're also adding here for free. I talked about O + low popcon only. > 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 which look outdated even compared to games from the 90ies. You seem unaware of the people which like retro games, or the possibility of studying sources, or even the historic value. We're not selling anything, why should we care about those commercial factors? If somebody don't like a game just don't install it. > I'm sure this kind of "soft criteria" also applies to other software > apart from games. Sure, those highly subjective criterias are powerful. Why not, for example, remove all Athena widgets based stuff? They look ugly, don't you think? > > 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. Again you're introducing extra factors. If not even the QA team cares to make a minimal maintenance upload is an added fact to "O + low popcon". > 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. Don't see how comparing two flawed numbers can produce a better hint for removal. Could work for not removing though, in the unlikely case that Ubuntu's popcon is not low but Debian's is very low. > > 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. That requires the first to be present, otherwise it's hard to compare ;-) This is another extra factor you're adding here, it's usually phrased as "better alternatives in the archive exist". > 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. Are you supposing that if they run out of QA packages they are going to focus on what you want? Sorry to inform you, but people doesn't work that way. Like someone said “Welcome to the desert of the real” ;-) > 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. Thanks, that boils down to using common sense and not stablishing rules. > > 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. Again, being maintained by QA team doesn't mean unmaintained. Please. > > “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. ;) No, only DDs can. And you have to make a very good case to convince a DD to reintroduce a package which has already been removed from the archive. So, in practical terms, removal of such packages equals to death for them. regards, -- Ricardo Mones ~ bash: ./signature: No such file or directory /bin/bash
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature