On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 06:46:41AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > As I mentioned recently[1], I'm working my way through the list of > packages at http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html and uploading them with the > Maintainer field set to the QA group. As Matthew Palmer suggested[2], I'm > also attempting to fix "quick win" bugs against the packages.
Please consider my dxpc and xmake packages which are also in this list
[1] and for which I prepared QA uploads.
> I've gotten up to waba, which has unsatisfiable build dependencies. For
> packages such as these, should I file a bug to have them removed from the
> archive?
Depends. I would go after some criteria:
1) Look for a new upstream version which perhaps has updated
build-depends. If it is easy to package (as it was for the two
mentioned above) do it.
2) Is the package in contrib or nonfree? Policy allows unsatisfiable
(Build-)Depends in such cases. A package can even be in contrib
due to exactly this.
3) Apply the normal criteria for removal: number of RC and other bugs,
time of orphaning, importance of the package, etc.
If you still want to remove the package, write a mail to debian-qa
and propose it together with mentioning your reasons...
But this are just my opinions...
> What about unbuildable packages? I think it was snes9express that I was
> unable to rebuild successfully.
I looked into this package yesterday. There is a new upstream version
available[2] which (according to the changelog) compiles with g++ >> 3
and with gtk2. But the word "beta" is far to often mentioned in the
release notes, so I wouldn't bother to package this for the QA Group,
this needs a real maintainer.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2003/debian-qa-200310/msg00107.html
[2] http://sf.net/projects/snes9express
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
