Hi, On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Bart Martens wrote: > The PTS now displays "This package has a relationship with <packagename> > needing a new maintainer" as meant on bug 695732 (another good idea from > Paul).
It would be nice to have 2 messages: "This package relies on <foo> which needs a new maintainer. You might want to adopt it or to step up as a co-maintainer (or help to find another new maintainer). See #123456" => for Depends/Build-Depends and classified in "TODO" "<foo> needs a new maintainer and is listed as a Recommends or Suggest of this package. See #123456. " => for Recommends/Suggests and classified in "problems" > The script depneedsmaint.pl looks at Sources and Packages files with these > criteria : > > my @mirrors = ( "debian", "debian-security" ); debian-security should not have very different dependencies form the version in the main repository and thus it doesn't bring much so scan it (though it doesn't hurt). > my @dists = ( "testing", "unstable" ); > my @distvariants = ( "", "-proposed-updates", "-updates" ); Same for -proposed-updates and -updates are. I believe it's best to not scan them for this purpose. > More complete could be : > > my @mirrors = ( "debian", "debian-backports", "debian-security", > "debian-volatile" ); > my @dists = ( "oldstable", "stable", "testing", "unstable", "experimental" ); > my @distvariants = ( "", "-proposed-updates", "-updates", "-backports" ); I agree on the addition of experimental too. Ideally, stable would be nice too but I understand it can be a pain if the unstable version stopped depending on the problematic dependency. So it's probably best to leave it out for now. > Opinions on tuning these parameters ? Or are they OK for now ? They are mostly OK, yes. > > It might be a good idea to add RFH to the mix. Maybe for packages with > > no RFA/O deps, add any RFH deps. > > Interesting idea, however this would add 2996 messages, with 1475 messages > only > for quilt. I'm not sure about repeating RFHs on so many PTS pages. On the > one > hand RFHs for packages with so many reverse dependencies deserve more > visibility, but on the other hand if we put too many messages on the PTS pages > then people won't read them anymore. Other opinions on this ? In principle it would be nice but I agree with your concerns. We should really have a less prominent section to put this kind of message in it. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121217085900.ga16...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
