Web lists-archives.com

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?




On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:18:28PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> > > For example
> > 
> > Here is another example of a low-quality RM bug; removal at request of
> > the maintainer, with no reason stated.
> > 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/887554
> > 
> > As a result of this, DSA has to resort to stretch or snapshot.d.o for
> > out-of-band access to our s390x machines.
> 
> As the FTP team member that processed that removal, I can tell you I think 
> it's perfectly fine.  I don't think the FTP team should be in the business of 
> second guessing maintainers that say their packages should be removed.

I don't think it should be the sole decision of the maintainer to get
a package removed.

Like in the case at hand:
Last maintainer upload was in 2014.
Maintainer does nothing (including no action on a "new upstream release" 
                         bug from a user in 2014).
Maintainer files RM bug in 2018.

Why does the maintainer have the sole decision here?
The package would have been in a better state had it
been a QA-maintained orphaned package since 2014.

> If it's important, someone who cares enough should re-introduce the package.

This works nicely, assuming the user who needs the package is a DD and 
notices immediately.

For normal users who are not following unstable the situation
is less rosy.

And if a normal user would notice immediately, what could he/she do?
Even an RFP to get a perfectly working package re-added just like it
was before the removal has close to zero chance of being acted on.

> Scott K

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed