On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 04:26:06PM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > On 18/10/01, Colin Watson wrote: > > Are you willing to maintain it, > > No, since I'm currently happy with the number of packages that I > maintain. Also I'm tracking the OpenSSH development and so far it worked > for me, so that I don't have a need to use ssh2. > > > or at least make it suitable for release? > > Is that the new way of threading people who speak up against a removal > request for a package?
Show me the threat. Otherwise, please calm down and stop being a twit. I'm merely trying to avoid the situation where people say "keep it" but nobody wants to keep it enough to fix its bugs so that we *can* keep it. Two of the RC bugs in ssh2 have been open for more than a year, causing it not to have been included in potato, and no-one seems to have cared enough so far. A package can be as worthy as it likes, but *somebody* has to want to maintain the thing. QA maintenance, while certainly better than the situation before the QA Group existed, is almost by definition not acceptable for a package in the long term. If it is, then there's no real reason to have normal maintainers at all. > Also why did you ignore my hint in which case a removal maybe > acceptable? I didn't. I was talking about the case in which the openssh maintainer reckons that there's a good reason to keep ssh2. In that case it needs a maintainer. > > We're only contemplating its removal because it's orphaned and buggy. > > Oh, so because it's orphaned we shall remove it? Great, when do you ask > to remove more packages from this list `grep-available -FMaintainer > -sPackage [EMAIL PROTECTED] which contains 225 packages with the > same reason? And yes, I'm pretty sure that some packages in that list > have also bugs and can therefor be called buggy, so that you reason for > removal is also fulfilled by them. So I plan to see more removal request > from you for packages which match the criteria that you defined above. > Otherwise this looks for me like someone seeking an very simple and easy > solution for handling release-critical bugs in packages maintained by > the members of this list. I look forward to seeing your proposed modifications to http://qa.debian.org/documentation/qa.html/ch-rules.html which modify the text that says that, after one month in which nobody has volunteered to maintain an orphaned package, "they will be withdrawn from the unstable distribution". I'm absolutely certain that a package which hasn't had a maintainer upload since February 2000 and which has RC bugs over a year old is well outside the limits where that document says (correctly, as far as I'm concerned) that we're supposed to seriously discuss removing the thing. Yes, if I see low-quality packages maintained by QA that nobody wants to maintain for real, I will (a) fix them if I can, (b) look for a proper maintainer who can fix them, and (c) if none can be found ask for them to be removed. (Sometimes the prospect of a package being removed can prompt somebody to step up to maintain it, so even the last resort (c) can be useful.) I won't be the first. Do you think that leaving crappy packages around increases the quality of Debian? If we don't have the guts to remove occasional packages that are "so buggy that we refuse to support them" (to quote Policy), then "Quality Assurance" is not the correct name for this list. Now, I suppose I've just bitten down hard on your attempt to start a flamewar. I apologize to the rest of the list. Can we get back to fixing packages now? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
