Hi, 2016-10-06 8:46 GMT+02:00 Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com>: > > > On October 6, 2016 2:04:36 AM EDT, Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> > wrote: >>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. > > Agreed it's frustrating, but I don't think it's the FTP Team's job to second > guess a maintainer request for removal of a buggy package. I doubt most > people appreciate the volume of rm bugs. FTP Team spending significant time > figuring out if maybe someone else might care just doesn't scale. > > As frustrating as occasional removal/reintroduction cycles are, they are rare > enough that despite the frustration when they occur it's really not worth the > effort it would take to avoid them completely.
I agree that we should not ask the FTP Team to take extra steps before performing removals. They already take care of many things and nowadays nowadays they act on uploads to NEW amazingly fast! Dear FTP Team, thank you, accepting packages with so little delay is a huge help! If there is something that we can do related to removals then it would be waiting with the removals one or two weeks after the removal request is filed. This time would most probably be enough for interested parties to fix the package or at least signal their intentions. Regarding dasher I did the last upload around the last freeze to keep it in stable and my plan was packaging new upstream for Stretch, but I was busy with other packages which require a transition thus should be ready this month. I'm sorry for not stating that in dasher's bugs, but I would have shared my plans if I knew about the removal. Thibaut Paumard already filed an ITP and thank you for that. Requesting the removal was a mistake IMO, but it can be fixed. We will ship dasher in Stretch and we still care about people who need it for using their computers. Cheers, Balint
