Re: Removing orphaned packages from testing
Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think there's another case here, namely:
>> (D) the software is useful, perhaps only in some corner cases but still
>> useful, but all the people who both use it and have enough Debian
>> experience to maintain it don't have enough time to do a proper job
>> I suspect that there's a lot of orphaned software in that category.
>> For example, running wnpp-alert at the moment on my system, I see RFAs
>> for libytnef, magicfilter, and ytnef and an O for xalan, none of which
>> is crap, exactly, all of which I use, and all of which I have some
>> interest in maintaining, but I don't have enough time to do justice to
>> any of them.
>> I guess this is sort of like (C), but it feels a bit different to me.
>> I'll end up adopting xalan if I have to to keep it in the archive,
>> since it's a dependency for some Shibboleth packages, but I really only
>> care about it insofar as Shibboleth might want to use it, so I'm not a
>> good choice to maintain it if someone else really uses it.
> That's why I suggested starting a team. I don't expect a team to do
> worst job than no maintainer at all, not even if they just fix bugs
> every four months or so. And in case they were, we should design tools
> to detect those cases. Don't you think so?
If I don't have time to do a proper job of maintaining the package, I
*definitely* don't have time to form a team, which takes even more time
than just maintaining the package.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: