On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:59:01PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:28:35PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: > > Right, but open for 47 days already. If for this amount of days an RC > > bug is open and nobody seems to have cared enough to fix it or even > > provide a patch, I think it's justified hinting it out of sarge. > You are probably right. However, removing a package should not be done > without > - adding a note about this to the release notes (Is there a package or > pseudo-package for the release notes now? I don't think so). There is an upgrade-reports package, but not a release-notes package. Perhaps upgrade-reports is good enough for the moment, since removed packages are upgrade issues? Anyway, packages are removed from testing or unstable+testing all the time when they're not releasable, without necessarily looking at whether they were present in stable; and many of these may get back into testing before release; so it's not really practical to track removals until we get close to freeze (like, hmm, now). > - Inform the maintainers of alternatives. Hmm, that assumes there generally are alternatives, or that the release team knows about them, neither of which is a given. If a niche package has RC bugs that aren't being resolved, we can't ship it, even if there's no known alternative. > Since polipo claims to be "in > the spirit of wwwoffle", it might even be possible to provide an > upgrade path. I'd be happy for any upgrade paths that maintainers choose to provide, but I just don't see this happening for the majority of packages -- we have enough trouble making sure all packages we ship are upgradable from woody, without swapping out the complete codebase, and I think this is a case of having to choose our battles. On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:24:56PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, maintainers have to know about there bugs. And RC bugs with this > > amount of time need some reaction. > Well, the point is that I thought about doing an NMU. However, I don't > feel like digging into the problem if the package was removed for an > unrelated reason which I cannot change (like dead upstream, better > replacement available). This is why I think it would be good to send a > note to the bug log. The release team doesn't remove packages from testing for reasons that don't go through the BTS, and these are generally documented in http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/ as noted. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
