Re: Bug#895246: gconf: Intent to Adopt
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:12:47 +0100
- From: Simon McVittie <smcv@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#895246: gconf: Intent to Adopt
(I don't speak for the GNOME team, or for Josselin, who is officially
this package's maintainer; please don't assume I do.)
On Sun, 08 Apr 2018 at 22:19:43 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I hereby declare my intent to adopt gconf.
Thank you for offering to take over this package. Do you also intend
to adopt these related packages?
- src:gconf-editor (which depends on gconf and is useless without it;
currently maintained by the GNOME team)
- src:orbit2 (orphaned library needed by gconf)
- src:libidl (orphaned library needed by orbit2)
- various language bindings for gconf
All are equally dead upstream (or more so in some cases) as far as I
Do you use software that relies on gconf yourself/are you able to test it?
I recently converted gconf's svn repository to git,
<https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/gconf>, along with a batch of other
svn repositories where the first round of imports via reposurgeon had
failed. Anything else that is currently maintained by the GNOME team
(notably gconf-editor) should be in git too, and that's almost certainly
a better starting point than the svn repositories currently listed in
their Vcs-* fields. I don't think orbit2 and libidl were ever maintained
by pkg-gnome, and they probably did't have a VCS before they were orphaned.
A gnome-team Owner or a salsa sysadmin might be able to move gconf into
another namespace on salsa while leaving redirects behind, if that's
something you'd find useful.
> This is about keeping software that is long dead upstream but
> has reverse dependencies longer on life support.
My concern about keeping packages like gconf in Debian, rather than
removing them, is that keeping significant amounts of unmaintained
software in Debian is an ongoing time- and attention-sink for contributors
doing archive-wide QA, and a distraction for users looking for software
For contributors: every time a package that hasn't had upstream
development for a few years fails to build during a transition, or
needs fixes for a new architecture, or has RC bugs that someone looks
at during a BSP, it takes a little bit more of several contributors'
time and attention (even if the only attention it gets is to look at the
package, realise it hasn't changed significantly in a decade, and decide
to prioritize something different). Software that depends on gconf isn't
*directly* an indication of something terribly bad, but it's reasonably
well correlated with the dependent software also being unmaintained or
undermaintained upstream. Each individual package blocking a transition,
and each individual RC bug, doesn't necessarily take much time and
attention, but it adds up over time, and I'm concerned that the long
tail of GNOME-2-based packages might be collectively and cumulatively
taking more time and attention than it deserves. In the case of gconf,
it's had about 8 years of deprecation. If you keep gconf and its rdeps on
life support until buster, how much do you expect the dependent packages
to have changed by the time we get to the bullseye freeze? If you keep
them going until bullseye, is the situation going to have improved for
bullseye+1? And so on. If the upstream maintainer of some software has
abandoned it, we can keep it alive for a while, but I don't think it's
healthy for Debian to take over for multiple of our release cycles.
For users: having a "long tail" of undermaintained software is both
a strength and a weakness. It's a strength because we get to say we
provide a vast amount of software, some of it very specialized. It's
a weakness because it drags down the average level of quality of the
results of a search for packages: if we have (say) two well-maintained
implementations of a particular class of package, we'd probably prefer
users to find only those two in a search, and not find them listed among
multiple poorly-maintained implementations. This requires some
value-judgement/curation, which Debian has historically not been great at.
One way this could perhaps be mitigated is by improving how we mark
deprecated and obsolescent packages, and as a small starting point for
that I've just opened a ftp-master bug to get gconf and gconfmm moved to
oldlibs (I hadn't realised they were still in libs). Better Description
fields might also help, but the sort of libraries that we don't want
new code using are exactly the sort of libraries where rewriting the
Description isn't high on anyone's priorities. Ideally this would have
happened back in 2010 when gconf was deprecated, of course, but
hindsight is always clearer.
If we had bikesheds, PPAs or an equivalent of Ubuntu universe, I'd
suggest moving unmaintained/undermaintained packages to one of those
to indicate that users shouldn't have the same quality expectations,
but we don't currently have that facility.
If, bearing all that in mind, you still think Debian is better with
gconf than without it, then I'm not going to try to prevent you from
maintaining it. (Again, I don't speak for the GNOME team.)
 The situation is rather different if someone (possibly the Debian
maintainer) *becomes* the new upstream developer: at least that
way any other distributions that still ship that package have a
natural place to coordinate and share improvements. This seems
to have happened for sysvinit recently, after a long period where
each distro that booted with sysvinit effectively had its own fork,
and I think that's a good thing to have happened.