On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:56 PM Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > > Shengjing Zhu <z...@debian.org> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:30 PM Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > >> Shengjing Zhu, what do you think, can we request removal of this package > >> from unstable? > >> > > > > Why would you bother with packages that are only in unstable? > > I'm not sure how best to handle removal for team maintained packages. > > I'm not the one who introduced this package. It's just a leaf package. > > So leave it in unstable and if someone wants to pick it up, they don't > > need to go through the NEW queue. > > Previously I only requested removal of some team maintained packages > > that upstream are gone, and I'm pretty sure they will not be used any > > more. > > Okay, I understand. It makes it a bit hard to tell if a new version of > a package that cadvisor depends on causes the build failure or if it was > there before. Maybe if a package already FTBFS then causing another > FTBFS in it is not worth checking for. > > Perhaps we can just collectively establish a list of packages that we no > longer care about as a team, and cadvisor seems to be one, and not let > problems with it stop progress on other packages.
IMO, it's well established, not only for go-team, packages that are not in testing wouldn't block others. -- Shengjing Zhu