Re: package has relationship with package needing new maintainer
Hi,
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Bart Martens wrote:
> The PTS now displays "This package has a relationship with <packagename>
> needing a new maintainer" as meant on bug 695732 (another good idea from Paul).
It would be nice to have 2 messages:
"This package relies on <foo> which needs a new maintainer. You might want
to adopt it or to step up as a co-maintainer (or help to find another new
maintainer). See #123456"
=> for Depends/Build-Depends and classified in "TODO"
"<foo> needs a new maintainer and is listed as a Recommends or Suggest of
this package. See #123456. "
=> for Recommends/Suggests and classified in "problems"
> The script depneedsmaint.pl looks at Sources and Packages files with these
> criteria :
>
> my @mirrors = ( "debian", "debian-security" );
debian-security should not have very different dependencies form the
version in the main repository and thus it doesn't bring much so scan it
(though it doesn't hurt).
> my @dists = ( "testing", "unstable" );
> my @distvariants = ( "", "-proposed-updates", "-updates" );
Same for -proposed-updates and -updates are. I believe it's best to not
scan them for this purpose.
> More complete could be :
>
> my @mirrors = ( "debian", "debian-backports", "debian-security", "debian-volatile" );
> my @dists = ( "oldstable", "stable", "testing", "unstable", "experimental" );
> my @distvariants = ( "", "-proposed-updates", "-updates", "-backports" );
I agree on the addition of experimental too. Ideally, stable would be nice
too but I understand it can be a pain if the unstable version stopped
depending on the problematic dependency. So it's probably best to leave it
out for now.
> Opinions on tuning these parameters ? Or are they OK for now ?
They are mostly OK, yes.
> > It might be a good idea to add RFH to the mix. Maybe for packages with
> > no RFA/O deps, add any RFH deps.
>
> Interesting idea, however this would add 2996 messages, with 1475 messages only
> for quilt. I'm not sure about repeating RFHs on so many PTS pages. On the one
> hand RFHs for packages with so many reverse dependencies deserve more
> visibility, but on the other hand if we put too many messages on the PTS pages
> then people won't read them anymore. Other opinions on this ?
In principle it would be nice but I agree with your concerns. We should
really have a less prominent section to put this kind of message in it.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Reply to: