Web lists-archives.com

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?




Andrej Shadura writes:
> On 01/02/18 09:40, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Andrej Shadura writes:
>>> On 31/01/18 21:01, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>>>>> Here you go, there's #871004 for you. Missed jessie, stretch,
>>>>> not in testing, no uploads since the beginning of 2017.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you'll get much sympathy for a package being removed
>>>> from unstable when it hasn't shipped with a Debian release since
>>>> Wheezy, and has continuously been out of Testing for 3.5 years.
>>>
>>> True, it hasn't. But if you look a little bit closer, you'll see both RC
>>> bugs it had were quite trivial to fix: two sourceless files (would be
>>> fixed by linking them to the packaged versions instead), and an failed
>>> attempt to download a build-dep (actually, fixed by an NMU while fixing
>>> another bug, just never marked as done).
>> 
>> So there was plenty of time to fix them.
>> 
>> Why would filing a third RC bug (the "proposed-RM") and waiting one
>> month more change anything?  Why would someone turn up to fix them now?
>
> Why not? I *was* already doing just that, but with an RM bug filed
> elsewhere, I was unable to know it's about to be removed. I would have
> reacted and closed it before the package's got removed.

Packages that have open RC bugs are always at risk to get removed
eventually.  That is why the bug is release critical.

Especially when there is no activity at all on the bugs for an extended
period of time (or no activity ever as was the case here).  And when
they already missed getting included in a stable release or two.

Ansgar