On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > I do read the "work-needing" mails, so I would have seen it. There was > no single mail on the debian-accessibility list about dasher. I didn't > know it got removed from testing or even that help was requested. Had I > known it, I would have moved for sure, or at least post a request for > help on debian-accessibility. > > So it's not active fighting indeed, but from the point of view of a11y > people it *is* definitely fighting to have to realize that something > again has fallen down, and have to spend energy into putting it up > again. > > The case of a11y packages is very particular: their popularity is > irrelevant, since some people simply *need* them to be able to do any > kind of work with Debian. Just dropping the package from Debian, saying > that people who need it will install it by themselves, actually means > just killing the package: how will the user know about it? How will he > manage to install it not through the package manager while he is already > struggling with using the computer? > > So if some of these packages is falling down, the debian-accessibility > team *has* to be notified so we can find a solution. Maybe we should > put in the ftp-master process that an RM request for any kind of > accessibility-related package shouldn't be processed without an ACK from > the debian-accessibility team?
These kind of issues aren't specific to removal of accessibility packages; people doing Debian package removal rarely do any due diligence work before filing removal bugs. Personally, at minimum I would like to see removalists contacting PTS/tracker/DDPO subscribers, upstream, any related Debian teams and any related Debian derivatives. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
