On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Colin Watson wrote:
> Which -qa doesn't have the capacity to do. One of the zope-* packages in
> question sat with release-critical bugs for over a *year*; I finally
Well, as I said I fixed and tested those zope-* packages I was interested
in as -qa.
In general I agree with your arguing.
> If you disagree with particular packages being removed, then the right
> thing to do is either to make a to-the-point response to the bug reports
I did so in my last quite short mail where I explained which packages
are worth removing, which would need real work and which ones should
just stay.
I feel a little bit angry to be ignored and just see them all removed.
I would not even had 24 hours to take over the package - even if I
would had the time to do. That's a pitty. (Well OK I could do an
initial new upload but this is rubish.) Perhaps I should maintain
a package my-very-own-prefered-qa-packages which depends from all those
packages to remove ...
> explaining why you think it's important that these packages should stay
> in woody even without a maintainer, or else to pick them up or find
> somebody who will. Long drawn-out arguments on the mailing list just
> waste everyone's time.
My intend was to *save* time of future maintainers. Why should this
stuff be removed completely. On the worst we have experimental or we
just should maintain an archive of removals.
> You're more interested than anyone else is, then. If this is the extent
> of our willingness to support the package, then the package should be
> removed unless it's absolutely necessary to the project.
>
> "In addition, the packages in main ... must not be so buggy that we
> refuse to support them." -- Debian Policy Manual, section 2.1.2
My vote for archiving those software you decide to remove to
debian-removels , debian-unsupported or whatever
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
