On Thursday, October 06, 2016 11:40:12 AM Paul Wise wrote: > 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.
It's extremely rare that a removal is problematic. It does happen and in cases where it does, the FTP team is generally happy to expedite a package back through New. Speaking only for myself, I think the level of work implied in your request translates into removals don't happen. If you think this work should be done, I encourage you to comment on the removal bugs requesting that the removal be held in abeyance while you do it (also adding a moreinfo tag is helpful). Scott K
