Borden wrote: > On a few projects, I've discovered how ancient some software is (like, last > commit more than 15 years ago ancient). Unless I missed something, > `apt-cache show` doesn't show the upstream release date.
This runs into problems quickly. Relevant issues include: - no upstream ever existed - the upstream no longer exists - the upstream doesn't release; the DD had to pick a particular git/svn/hg... version and use that - the official release date for the version was X, but this is the eleventh time a DD has patched in fixes from later versions - the package is synthetic and has multiple release dates, possibly including other problems from above - there are roughly 60,000 packages in Trixie. At five minutes per package to research the date, make a decision, add the header and re-upload, that's 5000 hours of new work you are asking volunteers to do. Two and a half years of full-time employment. Is it a plausible idea to suggest? Yes. Is making it mandatory for Trixie reasonable? No. -dsr-
