On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:51:55AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 02:26:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I'm trawling the list of build failures on various architectures, and I'm > > finding packages that have never, ever been successfully built on an > > autobuilder from day one, in spite of bug reports being filed early and > > often, e.g.: nemesi, bug #303075. What should be the policy for requesting > > removal of such packages? I think two months is more than enough time for a > > maintainer to get their act together before having the package bounced back > > out again. Anyone disagree? > Not much. Could you make it 3 or 4 months for sponsored packages? I > can see waiting for an upstream fix for that long, instead of bugging > a sponsor to "test" a fix, manually or automatically by uploading. > Especially when a release has been imminent for some time now.
We're talking here about an RC bug that is 100% the maintainer's fault. If it were a sponsored upload, the sponsor should also have his hand smacked with a ruler. Moreover, I don't think that's an excuse for not replying to the BTS -- and even if it were, I don't think it warrants not cleaning out crufty packages that should never have been allowed in to begin with. If someone fixes the package, it can always be re-uploaded. > What do you mean "bounced back out"? Do you mean removed from > testing? That seems fine. No, I mean kicking it out of unstable. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
