Web lists-archives.com

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?




On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 12:23 +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > I disagree, I'm afraid. As a user, the speed in which we do removals
> > from testing or unstable shouldn't matter to you. What matters is that
> > the software you need is in the stable release. For that, you need to
> > know that something is not going to be in the next stable release,
> > with enough time for you to request it to be included if it matters to
> > you.
> > 
> > (I think we need ways of helping users to do that, but it's orthogonal
> > to how fast we remove things from testing.)
> I do agree with the statements above. However I think that by decreasing the
> speed of removal, packages get more chance to be fixed, but I'll not bet on
> this.

I'd say we want to _increase_ the speed of removals.  Less cruft is good: if
a package is in hopeless state, shipping it is a disservice to the users.

However, a package being orphaned doesn't make it a lot less functional: an
user who's a DD or contributor, will fix it the moment it gets problematic
for his particular use case -- and conversely, no one gives flying carnal
knowledge about "a file in the testsuite has bad license" or "might cause
data loss on unclean shutdown on ext2 in an unusual configuration".
If it's orphaned+RC-buggy but it Works For Me™, it's good to stay, right?

Thus, mere orphaning doesn't seem to be a good marker, especially for non-DD
users.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ The bill with 3 years prison for mentioning Polish concentration
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ camps is back.  What about KL Warschau (operating until 1956)?
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Zgoda?  Łambinowice?  Most ex-German KLs?  If those were "soviet
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ puppets", Bereza Kartuska?  Sikorski's camps in UK (thanks Brits!)?