Web lists-archives.com

Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?




On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:23:51AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> If it's orphaned+RC-buggy but it Works For Me™, it's good to stay, right?

This doesn't compute.

A package can be orphaned and still perfectly functional; a package can
be orphaned and RC-buggy. A package cannot, however, be RC-buggy and in
a "still works" state. If it's genuinely RC buggy, then by definition it
no longer works properly or it's causing problems.

If it's RC buggy because the environment changed and it's now holding
back a transition or some such, then it's actively causing problems and
should be fixed or removed.

If it's RC buggy because it broke and now crashes on startup, then it,
well, broke and should be fixed or removed.

If it's RC buggy because someone had a bad case of "my use case is the
most important one in the world and this package should be fixed NOW",
then, well, fix the severity (it can be "important" without being RC
buggy) and it can remain.

But if a package is RC buggy, then it is *broken*, and should either be
removed or fixed. You don't need to take over maintenance of a package,
but if you think it's important enough to be retained in the archive,
ensuring that it at least doesn't have any RC bugs anymore shouldn't be
too much to ask. If you can't do that, then it's perfectly normal for it
to be removed.

-- 
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

  -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
     Hacklab