On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:39:04AM +0000, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jun 2008, Philipp Kern wrote: > > am Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:42:04AM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > > I believe it's _not_ a reasonable removal, those bugs should be fixed or > > > downgraded... > > > > Then please complain to the maintainers. The package in testing wasn't > > updated in months. > > Right, but it's not more my job than yours. The release team decided to > remove it, but it should really not do that lightly for packages > which are part of tasks IMO. First it's not part of a task, as it's pulled by a chain of recommends. Second, you've seen two gnome maintainers explaining to you on #-devel-fr why _they_ (as maintainers) are fine with that removal. So why are you still complaining ? It really doesn't help. > We should rather make a call for new maintainers than remove them > without further action... and then discover very late that we regressed > between etch and lenny in the user-experience point of view. Why very late ? have a look at the RC bug list every day like I do and you would know. At some point the RM team just can't NMU any broken package out there. It's micro-management and it doesn't scale. So there is a removal policy, that I believe to be sane, and update-* matched. FWIW I consider that new testing users not having a broken network-* installed are users that have a better experience than users with fancy stuff that does not work (but is very fancy I assume). -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpIP_ZpBxWkA.pgp
Description: PGP signature