On 13/08/26 11:46 pm, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I think some packages that we made go.mod uploads for are in the list.
> Packages that we could have removed instead of spending precious team QA
> time on.
+1
> My speculative guess is that at least maybe half of the 608 packages are
> valid candidates for removal.
>
> What do you think, is it useful to do mass-pruning of packages like
> this?
Yes, very much.
> What would the best action be -- file a 'serious' bug to trigger testing
> removal, and possibly offer a place to discuss the package? And after
> some months after testing removal, ask for ftp-master removal to cover
> unstable too? Maybe the last step is not essential, but having ancient
> unused packages in unstable is a QA concern.
I'd suggest directly doing a ROM (and X-Debbugs-CC the Uploaders) as this saves
us the work from having to do the manual work of tracking those serious bugs and
later reassigning them.
> I think the criteria for mass-bug filing could be:
>
> * Be in the output list of my tool
>
> * Clean 'dak rm' output (some packages in my list have consumers only in
> sid, and are thus not immediately relevant)
>
> * No non-QA upload in the last three years
>
> * Debian Go Team maintained
>
> Thoughts?
I'd guess your script would output go applications as well along with golang-*
libraries, right? I'd also add in popcon as a criteria
