Re: dogtail: Should this package be orphaned?
Hi Andrew, On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 09:37:02PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: > > While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a package that > > should maybe be orphaned by its maintainer, because: > > * Out of date with upstream. > > * Buggy. (1 RC bug). > > * NPOASR. (Never part of a stable release). > > * Low popcon. > > If you think that it should be removed from Debian instead of being > > orphaned, please reply to this bug and tell so. > > If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please > > close this bug and do an upload also fixing the other issues. > I just came across this package. It's been three years since this bug > was reported with no response from the maintainer. Nor have there been > any maintainer uploads of the package in this time. There are also > unanswered bugs that are even older than this. Though the maintainer > is not completely MIA. He has uploaded other packages within the last > year. [1] The package is no longer RC-buggy and /has/ been part of a stable release, though this is only because of the action of NMUers. I've added them to Cc: Mehdi, Bastian, do you have any personal interest in the dogtail package, and opinion on whether it should be orphaned? If it were orphaned, would either of you be interested in adopting it? I certainly don't think low popcon is an argument for orphaning the package - it might be an argument for removing the package, but isn't a very strong one by itself. Likewise, unanswered non-RC bugs are not by themselves a reason for orphaning a package. However, there's also bug #585287 which has gone unanswered and may actually be a serious issue in the package. José Carlos, are you still interested in maintaining dogtail? You haven't uploaded it in 6 years, and it does seem to be in need of attention. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RC bugs missing from UDD (was: RC bugs missing after experimental upload)
On 24/12/12 18:32, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Steven Chamberlain wrote: >> And I also wonder if this may have happened with any other packages; >> could RC bugs for Wheezy have gone missing for similar reasons? > > No, because they still show up in > http://bugs.debian.org/bugscan/britney/testing-nr and > http://bugs.debian.org/bugscan/other/testing.html for example. I see, thanks. The ones that seem to be missing from UDD bugs.cgi are: Because of renamed source package: libjavascriptcoregtk-3.0-0 688640 libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 651636 libwebkitgtk-3.0-0 642750,694971,673469 Missing for unknown reasons: gvfs 624507 lcdf-typetools 694352 libfbclient2 692948 libimager-qrcode-perl 692979 Fixed in sid, not wheezy, but missing from UDD bugs.cgi "Release View": kdepim-runtime 696054 libmpich2-dev 653616 minidjvu 654491 mpich2 666066 mtpfs 696552 php5-ps 694748 python-cups 667995 Missing from UDD bugs.cgi "Cleaner View"; fixed version not in archive: spatialite-bin 661018 Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- 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/50d8ac68.5030...@pyro.eu.org
Re: Bug#553898: dogtail: Should this package be orphaned?
I will do a proper orphan of a bunch of packages soon, as I am completely our of time. But in the meanwhile take this mail as an orphan bug report in wnpp. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. And merry Xmas. El 24/12/2012 19:30, "Steve Langasek" escribió: > Hi Andrew, > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 09:37:02PM -0500, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote: > > > > While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a package that > > > should maybe be orphaned by its maintainer, because: > > > > * Out of date with upstream. > > > * Buggy. (1 RC bug). > > > * NPOASR. (Never part of a stable release). > > > * Low popcon. > > > > If you think that it should be removed from Debian instead of being > > > orphaned, please reply to this bug and tell so. > > > > If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please > > > close this bug and do an upload also fixing the other issues. > > > I just came across this package. It's been three years since this bug > > was reported with no response from the maintainer. Nor have there been > > any maintainer uploads of the package in this time. There are also > > unanswered bugs that are even older than this. Though the maintainer > > is not completely MIA. He has uploaded other packages within the last > > year. [1] > > The package is no longer RC-buggy and /has/ been part of a stable release, > though this is only because of the action of NMUers. I've added them to > Cc: > Mehdi, Bastian, do you have any personal interest in the dogtail package, > and opinion on whether it should be orphaned? If it were orphaned, would > either of you be interested in adopting it? > > I certainly don't think low popcon is an argument for orphaning the package > - it might be an argument for removing the package, but isn't a very strong > one by itself. Likewise, unanswered non-RC bugs are not by themselves a > reason for orphaning a package. However, there's also bug #585287 which > has > gone unanswered and may actually be a serious issue in the package. > > José Carlos, are you still interested in maintaining dogtail? You haven't > uploaded it in 6 years, and it does seem to be in need of attention. > > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. > Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ > slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org >
Re: dogtail: Should this package be orphaned?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 12/24/2012 07:26 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The package is no longer RC-buggy and /has/ been part of a stable > release, though this is only because of the action of NMUers. > I've added them to Cc: Mehdi, Bastian, do you have any personal > interest in the dogtail package, and opinion on whether it should > be orphaned? If it were orphaned, would either of you be > interested in adopting it? > I NMUed it only to get the python-apt transition done, iirc. I have no real interest in this package. Regards, - -- Mehdi -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQ2MgNAAoJEDe1GR0FRlJoPZgH/isyHbSxU6OkRcNrqHkptsQN 3AtRfZecEWl8DR3mbhFAEfEEkNPqY3CgCfw70qu9n9lJPyve0Ll0xedum1KCOdyF 2zZU94b4kEoSUjRLYpbKdh1bElR1YDAOJ670LN735dktQZl+9E3ylM4FcWUCyWbs JwKuwRUFJiHfVeruB0wML6ou6+gZfNaguRDX+k3LpKtc4qeJgFsFIW7f1NJ/XYKS eilfJEoY7ZsYYCyGgboE9K30xcDDu0TlKNX9Q2v5wnIv7AsbmUfUan7P2QEeqXT2 FBwxyh4MWO2gMtkNieX3njobsn5pKUpPk4sb0hLFGXE+itN0G+JRDtaALVjSHHI= =HthM -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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/50d8c80f.5040...@debian.org
