tags 362162 moreinfo
thanks
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 05:40:17PM +0100, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote:
> # Please remove tidev-modules
> reassign 362162 ftp.debian.org
> retitle 362162 RM: tidev-modules -- RoQA, now part of linux-2.6
> [...]
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > Nat
# Remove sctplib
reassign 340938 ftp.debian.org
retitle 340938 RM: sctplib -- RoQA; SCTP implementation inside the kernel
# Remove socketapi
reassign 340939 ftp.debian.org
retitle 340939 RM: socketapi -- RoQA; SCTP implementation inside the kernel
thanks
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007, Moritz Muehlenhoff
# Please remove tidev-modules
reassign 362162 ftp.debian.org
retitle 362162 RM: tidev-modules -- RoQA, now part of linux-2.6
# Please remove qla2x00
reassign 366743 ftp.debian.org
retitle 366743 RM: qla2x00 -- RoQA, now part of linux-2.6
thanks
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> N
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> tidev-modules: 43 (9 votes)
This is now part of the linux-2.6 package.
> In "non-free":
> qla2x00: 11 (4 votes)
> -- this should be expected to have low popcon counts.
>But if nobody cares enough to fix the bugs (I don't),
>removal should be requested: it is non-
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> sctplib: 8 (1 vote)
> socketapi: 5
This can probably be removed; there's now an SCTP implementation inside
the kernel and the version above might very well be outdated wrt to
the current standard. (it's from September 2005)
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, em
Revisiting http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/09/msg00013.html .
Some have been ITAed or adopted and are removed from the list. :-)
Others have been removed from Debian or removal requests filed (some by me)
and are likewise removed from the list. :-)
It looks like we could use a Korean-spe
Revisiting http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/09/msg00013.html .
Some have been ITAed or adopted and are removed from the list. :-)
Others have been removed from Debian or removal requests filed (some by me)
and are likewise removed from the list. :-)
It looks like we could use a Korean-spe
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> manpages-fi: 14
>> manpages-ko: 16
>
> Dropping these is really not an option; Debian is committed to
> internationalization.
Well, I guess core manpages don't change that much, so even if they're
very obsolete, they are probably still useful. And they're less ea
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> malaga: 16 (5 votes)
Please note from #369161 that there is someone who might be willing to
maintain malaga if asked, under sponsorship.
> manpages-fi: 14
> manpages-ko: 16
Dropping these is really not an option; Debian is committed to
internationa
This is an update on http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/08/msg00115.html.
Some have been ITAed or adopted and are removed from the list. :-)
Others have been removed from Debian or removal requests filed (some by me)
and are likewise removed from the list. :-)
eco5000: 10
hanterm-xf: 17 (5
Update on http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/06/msg00043.html.
Some have been ITAed or adopted and are removed from the list. :-)
Others have been removed from Debian or removal requests filed and are likewise
removed
from the list. :-)
eco5000: 10
elisp-manual-ja: 16
emacs-lisp-intro-ja:
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>I'm curiously amused that the "don't spend time on them!" crowd is now
>spending time on them. Why? The "just ignore them" strategy hasn't
>been a disaster so far; why not continue it?
(1) Whenever I go to install packages, I see these packages. "Oh, an
addressbook
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:01:37AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Whose archives? Ours?
Yes. Perhaps you're aware of archive.debian.org, which has releases back
to bo?
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:18:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Yes. Deleting information is a big step.
>
> Luckily we aren't doing that, since the information itself is still
> available in archives.
Whose archives? Ours? Perhaps if you woul
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:18:13PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Yes. Deleting information is a big step.
Luckily we aren't doing that, since the information itself is still
available in archives.
I was myself bit by this, when the gnome maintainers decided that
gnome-1 was obsolete, a
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, what is unsubstantiated is your characterization of what is
> happening. One of things that happens *every time* this sort of
> discussion comes up is that someone starts creating straw men along
> the lines of "what if some important package gets re
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Luk!
Hi Bas
> You wrote:
>
>> This is only the starting list, there were other criteria [1] mentioned
>> already a couple of times before a package would be filed for removal! I
>> don't get why that has to repeated every time again?
>>
>> [1]:
>> (a) aren't ITAed, and
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:03:42PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
be useless" is incorrect.
You've made thi
Hi Luk!
You wrote:
> This is only the starting list, there were other criteria [1] mentioned
> already a couple of times before a package would be filed for removal! I
> don't get why that has to repeated every time again?
>
> [1]:
> (a) aren't ITAed, and
> (b) have been orphaned for more than,
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Michael!
>
> You wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>> But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
>>> be useless" is incorrect.
>> You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantia
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
>>be useless" is incorrect.
>
> You've made this assertion several times, it's still
> unsubstantiated.
Wow, a
Hi Michael!
You wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
> >be useless" is incorrect.
>
> You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantiated.
> The process of identif
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
be useless" is incorrect.
You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantiated.
The process of identifying potentially problematic package
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:51:28AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>>Basically, this amounts to perpetually keeping obsolete packages. Is a
>>good choice?
>
> Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete
> junk--the "every package is sacre
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> If it gets dropped entirely, then the user doesn't get any notice of
>> that fact; their system just keeps on going as before. Except that
>> the package now gets *no* updates instead of minimal ones.
> Basically, this am
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:22:26AM -0400, Jose Parrella wrote:
> I don't really support this idea but: what if a branch of the archive is
> opened where this packages could be put in and Debian makes a explicit
> statement indicating that packages there are orphaned or very little
> maintained? Thi
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:22:26AM -0400, Jose Parrella wrote:
> Michael Stone escribi?:
> > Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete junk--the
> > "every package is sacred crowd" comes along every time this topic comes
>
> I think I've learned that, too.
>
> I don't really s
Michael Stone escribió:
> Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete junk--the
> "every package is sacred crowd" comes along every time this topic comes
I think I've learned that, too.
I don't really support this idea but: what if a branch of the archive is
opened where this pa
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:51:28AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Basically, this amounts to perpetually keeping obsolete packages. Is a
good choice?
Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete junk--the
"every package is sacred crowd" comes along every time this topic comes
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If it gets dropped entirely, then the user doesn't get any notice of
> that fact; their system just keeps on going as before. Except that
> the package now gets *no* updates instead of minimal ones.
Basically, this amounts to perpetually keeping obsolete packages. Is a
On Sunday 11 June 2006 17:55, Luk Claes was like:
> > In other cases, IMO, it's a lot of work to check and remove the
> > packages (both for the QA and the FTP teams), without any real gain for
> > the project.
>
> I don't see how it can be still a lot of work now? The real gain is less
> packages
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they require *any* maintenance, they are a waste of our time. QA has
> hundreds of packages to maintain, most of which have far, far more users.
> (Some have several thousand popcon installations.)
Um, great. I've been quite happy not to spend
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Well, as long as there are no RC bugs, and the packages are in testing,
> I really see no need to remove them.
Well, *if* they are in good shape and require absolutely *no* maintenance,
they should be kept, yes.
Blackbook may be in this situation. (Checks: blackbook is dea
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'd prefer Debian releases to consist of properly supported packages as
>> much as possible. It's not as if we want to forcibly delete the packages
>> from our user's machines, we'd just acknowledge that they aren't
>>
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd prefer Debian releases to consist of properly supported packages as
> much as possible. It's not as if we want to forcibly delete the packages
> from our user's machines, we'd just acknowledge that they aren't
> maintained anymore.
Me too, but I w
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Luk!
Hi Bas
> You wrote:
>
>>> In other words, if almost no-one uses them, does it matter if the packages
>>> are of decent quality? Also, if almost no-one uses them, how do you know
>>> they're of bad quality?
>> It does matter if they are of decent quality as we need
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Well, as long as there are no RC bugs, and the packages are in testing,
> I really see no need to remove them. Even if only a few people use the
> package, why annoy them by removing it from Debian?
I'd prefer Debian releases to consist of properly supported packages as
muc
Hi Luk!
You wrote:
> > In other words, if almost no-one uses them, does it matter if the packages
> > are of decent quality? Also, if almost no-one uses them, how do you know
> > they're of bad quality?
>
> It does matter if they are of decent quality as we need to support them
> (mirrors, infr
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Luk Claes wrote:
>> How can we be sure the packages are of decent quality if almost noone
>> uses them? How can we be sure there are (almost) no unreported RC bugs
>> for instance?
>
> If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is there to hear it
This one time, at band camp, Luk Claes wrote:
>How can we be sure the packages are of decent quality if almost noone
>uses them? How can we be sure there are (almost) no unreported RC bugs
>for instance?
If a tree falls in a forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a
sound?
How can yo
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Nathanael!
>
> You wrote:
>
>> "Very low" is defined as less than 20 installations. Votes are noted only
>> for
>> packages which aren't "no files".
>> With 13184 installations reporting to popcon, 20 installations represents
>> less than one installation in 500.
>> I
Hi Nathanael!
You wrote:
> "Very low" is defined as less than 20 installations. Votes are noted only for
> packages which aren't "no files".
> With 13184 installations reporting to popcon, 20 installations represents
> less than one installation in 500.
> I think all of these are candidates for
"Very low" is defined as less than 20 installations. Votes are noted only for
packages which aren't "no files".
With 13184 installations reporting to popcon, 20 installations represents
less than one installation in 500.
I think all of these are candidates for removal. I haven't checked whether
43 matches
Mail list logo
