On Tue, 2002-01-01 at 12:51, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Yes, wether it is after 1 or 2 releases... IMHO, i think it is important that
> the Debian Project should decide what is good for the distribution... all
> packages that do not meet 'our' standard can be moved into "unstable"
> and being in u
On Saturday 29 December 2001 14:14, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Lenart Janos a écrit :
> > As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> > unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
>
> I don't think all these packages should be swept out. Unmaintained
> packages that don't hav
In Tue, 1 Jan 2002 15:39:29 +1100 Hamish cum veritate scripsit :
> > Unmaintained, unused, and untested packages are in Debian.
> > If no one uses these packages, bugs won't be filed.
>
> If no one uses the package, the bugs are not a problem! :-)
No one may be using it in unstable/testing, in t
On Mon, Dec 31, 2001 at 05:09:06PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Unmaintained, unused, and untested packages are in Debian.
> If no one uses these packages, bugs won't be filed.
If no one uses the package, the bugs are not a problem! :-)
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMA
Hi,
Le Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 06:50:16PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw écrivait:
> It's quite easy to say that you can find dozens of such packages. Please
> be specific, and post the name of those packages/maintainers (take it to
> -private, if you want) but I honestly don't believe that there are many
> ba
Le Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 08:51:20PM -0600, Colin Watson écrivait:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 06:43:57PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > I don't agree. In a perfect world, yes, we would have all available
> > software packaged for debian and all packages maintained. But that's
> > just not reality. It
Hi Junichi!
You wrote:
> Unmaintained, unused, and untested packages are in Debian.
> If no one uses these packages, bugs won't be filed.
> No bugs filed is not a status of well-being.
But OTOH no bugs is neither an indication that the package is not being
used.
--
Kind regards,
+-
In Sat, 29 Dec 2001 14:14:15 +0100 Josselin cum veritate scripsit :
> I don't think all these packages should be swept out. Unmaintained
> packages that don't have bunches of bugs shouldn't be a problem, for
> example.
No, it's a serious problem.
Unmaintained, unused, and untested packages are
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 06:43:57PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> I don't agree. In a perfect world, yes, we would have all available
> software packaged for debian and all packages maintained. But that's
> just not reality. It's not even necessary. There is no need for
> ``backup maintainers'': if
* Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20011230 15:40]:
> it's quite funny, but I didn't see an announcement of this... I find
> this out months ago by diging qa.debian.org
It was announced and discussed on the QA list (debian-qa).
> I think resources like these should be announced and docu
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:45:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > I can see how removing bad packages helps. How does removing an MIA
> > maintainer make anything better?
>
> The distort the apparent size of our project and, more importantly
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20011229 12:59]:
> > > We orphan ALL his packages, we get to know he is MIA and will not
> >
> > Oh, I think orphaning his packages can be a useful thing to do. But
> > I just don't see why explicitly punt
Hi Raphael!
You wrote:
> If you look carefully you'll find dozen of packages that were ITPed by
> several persons (that means that several developers are interested in
> the same package) that finally get packaged but not well maintained.
It's quite easy to say that you can find dozens of such p
Hi Raphael!
You wrote:
> The only list is the (private) list of MIA maintainer based on echelon
> that is maintained by Nils Lohner (CQ on irc).
Yeah, that's what I meant. It could be easily extended.
> May I also tell you that such a list is no solution ? The real problem
> are the orphaned pa
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 17:12:44 +0100
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Juha Jäykkä écrivait:
> It's funny how people keep reinventing the wheel. :-)
>
> Martin Michlmayr (tbm) already does something like that although it's not
> really automated.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 14:00:29 +0200 (EET)
Juha Jäykkä <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > maintainers' was: send him a notice that he'll be removed if he won't
> > take care of his packages/other tasks for foo more days, if he does
> > not answer or tell us he's giving up his key is removed from the key
Le Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Juha Jäykkä écrivait:
> This could be nice... I might even volunteer for setting up
> something like that - given the authority, of course: orphaning other
> people's packages must be done responsibly...
It's funny how people keep reinventing the wheel.
Le Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:11:17PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw écrivait:
> Let me refrase my question: can you explictly point out some packages
> that have been ITP'ed lately and of which you think that they should not
> go into Debian because they aren't needed? I can't, so I don't think
> there's a pro
Le Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw écrivait:
> > maintainer disappears. As those people would get the bug logs, they'd
> > notice that the main maintainer never responds and could decide to take
> > it over.
>
> Well, if that's all you want, there's a much easier
No, that's n
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 12:50:58PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> For the record, please note that while quite a few packages of
> inactive developers have been orphaned already, no one has been asked
> to leave the project for their inactivity (An inactive developer
> without any packages doesn'
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:45:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I can see how removing bad packages helps. How does removing an MIA
> maintainer make anything better?
The distort the apparent size of our project and, more importantly,
swamp our Standard Resolution Procedure by artificiall
On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Juha J?ykk? wrote:
> > This doesn't sound too bad to me, _but_ a better report might be to
> > set up some sort of automatic system that sends out email to all
> > maintainers at 1 month intervals [or something like that]. If
> > someone doesn't respond to
> maintainers' was: send him a notice that he'll be removed if he won't
> take care of his packages/other tasks for foo more days, if he does
> not answer or tell us he's giving up his key is removed from the keyring
I agree to this. The obvious problem would be who does this... ;) I
do not actu
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20011229 12:59]:
> > We orphan ALL his packages, we get to know he is MIA and will not
>
> Oh, I think orphaning his packages can be a useful thing to do. But
> I just don't see why explicitly punting him helps.
For the record, please note that while q
> This doesn't sound too bad to me, _but_ a better report might be to
> set up some sort of automatic system that sends out email to all
> maintainers at 1 month intervals [or something like that]. If
> someone doesn't respond to 2 or 3, then they are marked inactive and
> someone, preferable a hum
> Add also that packages can reach their End-Of-Life time.
Assuming the package has no real bugs (that is, it is still usable
with the bugs it has), when will it reach its end-of-life time? I
would say it only reaches it when no one uses it any more. As long as
there is even a single user, the p
Hi Raphael!
You wrote:
> The basic goal is that someone still gets the bug reports if the main
> maintainer disappears. As those people would get the bug logs, they'd
> notice that the main maintainer never responds and could decide to take
> it over.
Well, if that's all you want, there's a much
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 19:09:48 -0200
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Oh, I think orphaning his packages can be a useful thing to do. But I
> > just don't see why explicitly punting him helps. Just make the
>
> If he did
Hi Lenart!
You wrote:
> True. But, if you can't find 3 people out of 900 (so 1 out of 300) who
> see interest in a package, then that package is most probably very
> rarely used.
Let me refrase my question: can you explictly point out some packages
that have been ITP'ed lately and of which you t
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I think we have this problem to solve: quality going down and the
> > > > s
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:45:54PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> I can see how removing bad packages helps. How does removing an MIA
> maintainer make anything better?
I don't know that removing MIA maintainers would help that much but
opening up their packages so that other people could
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I think we have this problem to solve: quality going down and the
> > > solution I see is attacking this problem in its roots: remo
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think we have this problem to solve: quality going down and the
> > solution I see is attacking this problem in its roots: removing
> > bad packages and bad/mia maintainers
>
> I can see how
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we have this problem to solve: quality going down and the
> solution I see is attacking this problem in its roots: removing
> bad packages and bad/mia maintainers
I can see how removing bad packages helps. How does removing an MIA
maint
Le Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 09:04:48PM +0100, Russell Coker écrivait:
> > > I have something better to propose. But it requires a new (long asked)
> > > feature : the ability to subscribe to a "package" (to get its bug logs,
> > > to get mails sent to @packages.debian.org [1]).
>
> Sounds like a great
Firstly having three people saying that a package should be in Debian seems
like a useless waste of time to me.
Because of this, if such an idea is implemented then I will second any
package which meets current Debian policy without exception, this means that
anyone who wants a new package incl
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - for each ITP, we need at least 2 developers that will maintain the
> package, they both subscribe to the package, one is the official
> maintainer, the other is listed in the Uploaders: field.
This may work with larger packa
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:31:37AM +0100, Lenart Janos wrote:
> [Please Cc: to me! (ETOOHIGHVOLUME)]
>
> As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
> My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload NEW package, but he
> needs 2 p
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 10:16:04AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lenart Janos) writes:
> > Other thing: there might be a need for a new Priority (or re-arrange the
> > current ones). I mean, something like 'Priority: zero' or something like
> > that, so they won't even go to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lenart Janos) writes:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > You wrote:
> > > As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> > > unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
> > > My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload N
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 02:14:15PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Lenart Janos a icrit :
> >
> > As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> > unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
>
> I don't think all these packages should be swept out. Unmaintained
> packages t
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001 16:21:39 +0100
Lenart Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have something better to propose. But it requires a new (long asked)
> > feature : the ability to subscribe to a "package" (to get its bug logs,
> > to get mails sent to @packages.debian.org [1]).
> [...]
> > PS: Feel
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:31:37AM +0100, Lenart Janos ?crivait:
>
> Well, the basic idea is not so stupid, but the implementation is not
> really great.
The important part is that something must be done.
> I have something better
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:30:28PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> You wrote:
> > As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> > unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
> > My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload NEW package, but he
> > needs 2 proponent DD who are
Hi Lenart!
You wrote:
> As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
> My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload NEW package, but he
> needs 2 proponent DD who are willing to "give his signature for it".
> Just to make it a
Le Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:31:37AM +0100, Lenart Janos écrivait:
> needs 2 proponent DD who are willing to "give his signature for it".
> Just to make it a little more complicated a minimum of 50 word long
> justification needed from all the 3 guys (e.g. two proponent DD and the
> future maintainer
Lenart Janos a écrit :
>
> As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
I don't think all these packages should be swept out. Unmaintained
packages that don't have bunches of bugs shouldn't be a problem, for
example.
A better s
also sprach Alex Pennace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.12.29.1212 +0100]:
> As far as this proposal applies to free software, how does this serve
> the interests of the free software community? (See section 4 of the
> Debian Social Contract.) My opinion is this policy is an
> unneeded hurdle that needs
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 11:31:15AM +0100, Lenart Janos wrote:
> As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
> unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
> My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload NEW package, but he
> needs 2 proponent DD who are willing to "give his s
* Lenart Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011229 11:32]:
> My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload NEW package, but he
> needs 2 proponent DD who are willing to "give his signature for it".
> Just to make it a little more complicated a minimum of 50 word long
> justification needed from all the 3
[Please Cc: to me! (ETOOHIGHVOLUME)]
As you might already have noticed Debian begun to bloat - so many
unneeded, unused, unmaintained(!) packages.
My opinion is that one DD alone couldn't upload NEW package, but he
needs 2 proponent DD who are willing to "give his signature for it".
Just to make i
51 matches
Mail list logo
