Re: mass-removing packages that missed both jessie and stretch?
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:29:50PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > It is becoming increasingly painful to do QA work due to the number of > packages in unstable that have been completely broken for a long time. indeed. > So, I propose that we remove from the archive all packages that: > were in unstable at the time of the jessie freeze > AND > were not in jessie at the time of the release > AND > where in unstable at the time of the stretch freeze > AND > where not in stretch at the time of the release > AND > are still not in testing > AND > were not uploaded over the last 6 months > > > I propose the following process: > - I would file a bug against each of those packages, asking whether it > should be removed, and stating that the bug should be closed if the > package should stay in Debian. > - after a month, I would reassign/retitle the bugs that are still open > to ftp.debian.org to request the package removal. > > I don't plan to argue: if someone cares enough about the package to > close the bug, so be it. I'm totally in favor of this plan. A simple mail will except packages from removal plus even if it happened, it's trivial to reintroduce them via reuploading from snapshot.d.o. -- cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: mass-removing packages that missed both jessie and stretch?
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:07:04AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:29:50PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > It is becoming increasingly painful to do QA work due to the number of > > packages in unstable that have been completely broken for a long time. > > indeed. Yes. They generate a lot of noise for several team, even if they are then ignored it still takes time to look at them at least once to decide they are to be ignored… > > I propose the following process: > > - I would file a bug against each of those packages, asking whether it > > should be removed, and stating that the bug should be closed if the > > package should stay in Debian. > > - after a month, I would reassign/retitle the bugs that are still open > > to ftp.debian.org to request the package removal. > > > > I don't plan to argue: if someone cares enough about the package to > > close the bug, so be it. > > I'm totally in favor of this plan. A simple mail will except packages from > removal plus even if it happened, it's trivial to reintroduce them via > reuploading > from snapshot.d.o. Please, go ahead with this great plan. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Any trouble in adding news items? (tracker.debian.org)
Hi, It seems that any "news" items are not added since yesterday. For example, I've uploaded snapper 0.5.0-2 but it doesn't appear yet. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/snapper -- Regards, Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane
Re: mass-removing packages that missed both jessie and stretch?
On 2017-07-20 12:07, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:29:50PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> It is becoming increasingly painful to do QA work due to the number of >> packages in unstable that have been completely broken for a long time. > > indeed. > >> So, I propose that we remove from the archive all packages that: >> were in unstable at the time of the jessie freeze >> AND >> were not in jessie at the time of the release >> AND >> where in unstable at the time of the stretch freeze >> AND >> where not in stretch at the time of the release >> AND >> are still not in testing >> AND >> were not uploaded over the last 6 months >> >> >> I propose the following process: >> - I would file a bug against each of those packages, asking whether it >> should be removed, and stating that the bug should be closed if the >> package should stay in Debian. >> - after a month, I would reassign/retitle the bugs that are still open >> to ftp.debian.org to request the package removal. >> >> I don't plan to argue: if someone cares enough about the package to >> close the bug, so be it. > > I'm totally in favor of this plan. A simple mail will except packages from > removal plus even if it happened, it's trivial to reintroduce them via > reuploading > from snapshot.d.o. Sounds like a very good plan. This will hopefully also reduce piuparts problems in "cruft" packages, especially if they have outdated binary packages on some platforms. We should continue to do this after future releases - perhaps targetting for the removals to be performed three months after a release. Andreas
Re: mass-removing packages that missed both jessie and stretch?
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 23:29:50 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > So, I propose that we remove from the archive all packages that: > were in unstable at the time of the jessie freeze > AND > were not in jessie at the time of the release > AND > where in unstable at the time of the stretch freeze > AND > where not in stretch at the time of the release > AND > are still not in testing > AND > were not uploaded over the last 6 months > > I propose the following process: > - I would file a bug against each of those packages, asking whether it > should be removed, and stating that the bug should be closed if the > package should stay in Debian. > - after a month, I would reassign/retitle the bugs that are still open > to ftp.debian.org to request the package removal. I think that's a good idea in general, and I find the criteria and process very reasonable. Thanks! Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Neil Young: Birds signature.asc Description: Digital Signature
