Otto Kekäläinen <[email protected]> writes: > Thanks Simon for doing this! > >> > I am in favor of cleaning up the repository and the heuristics you listed > to find unnecessary and unmaintained leaf packages sound sensible.
Thanks! > My only request is that you don't aim for a full list immediately and a > massive removal batch, but instead pick 10-30 most confidently obsolete > packages, file RM (from unstable, testing removal won't really save any QA > work), and then wait a month before the next batch so there is time for > people to speak up if they notice any flaws in the approach or unintended > aide effects. Please review the bugs below. I didn't pick them as the most confidently obsolete packages, but just the top packages from the list. Next time I can go through the list and select packages where upstream has been archived or officially deprecated, that should be a certain sign, and there are some that are a bit more arguable. However, is it useful to keep a golang-*-dev package in Debian even though there are no consumers in Debian? There is a QA cost to keep these zombies alive. /Simon https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940346 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940347 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940379 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940391 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940407 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940430 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=940432 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1004303 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1144378 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1144379 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1144380 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1144381 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1144382
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
