On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Brian Russo wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:56:04PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > > > > Anyone have comments on the idea that the only packages we should release > > > are > > > ones that have a maintainer, not Debian QA? > > This isn't such a bad idea. > > > > > Then I'll adopt all the packages that don't have a maintainer and send > > RFAs for them (like I did with several of the packages tbm wanted to > > remove). But I take care about them when the maintainer is set to Debian > > QA, too, so I can't see the big difference. > > Yes, well as I've said to tbm, 1) adopting a package just to 'save' > it, without really caring/wanting it just perpetuates old crufty
I care about these packages: - they have no open RC bugs - I fix all other bugs I can fix without spending too much time - they have all a Standards-Version <= 3.1 (that means their Standards-Version is higher than the one of 25% of the packages in Debian!) > packages in Debian, while some of these ancient neglected packages > are just.. neglected, others are genuinely useless I think, > otherwise would someone not have cared, and grabbed it? I remember that "silo" was orphaned for several months before someone adopted it... > Which brings me to 2) can we get rid of more of these old crufty > ones? Everyone is so afraid do this, else they'll get flamed for > being evil and removing old packages! indeed the impertinence. >... How do you decide if something is "old crufty"? I believe that of "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" and that's why I want that there's a good reason when a package gets removed. cu Adrian -- Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht, sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
