Paul Wise, on Thu 06 Oct 2016 11:40:12 +0800, wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > 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;
The kind of issue isn't specific indeed. But the consequence is specific: the result is that some people can not use Debian any more at all. That's very different from just missing a program you really want to have. Scott Kitterman, on Thu 06 Oct 2016 00:08:19 -0400, wrote: > 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). I'm not sure to understand what you meant exactly here. debian-accessibility wasn't aware of the RM request before it was processed. Realizing that and having to go through NEW again is not technically hard, sure, but it takes a lot of energy to go pass the frustration that it happened at all. Samuel
