On Sunday 11 June 2006 17:55, Luk Claes was like:
> > In other cases, IMO, it's a lot of work to check and remove the
> > packages (both for the QA and the FTP teams), without any real gain for
> > the project.
>
> I don't see how it can be still a lot of work now? The real gain is less
> packages
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If it gets dropped entirely, then the user doesn't get any notice of
> that fact; their system just keeps on going as before. Except that
> the package now gets *no* updates instead of minimal ones.
Basically, this amounts to perpetually keeping obsolete packages. Is a
Re: Filippo Giunchedi 2006-06-10 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> thanks for the quick reply, is the "package - (short) description" available
> somewhere? (okay, this might be another feature for the famous CRMI *g*)
Atm it's a big ugly "throw all Packages.gz files at grep-dctrl" which
puts the data into a
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:51:28AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Basically, this amounts to perpetually keeping obsolete packages. Is a
good choice?
Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete junk--the
"every package is sacred crowd" comes along every time this topic comes
Michael Stone escribió:
> Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete junk--the
> "every package is sacred crowd" comes along every time this topic comes
I think I've learned that, too.
I don't really support this idea but: what if a branch of the archive is
opened where this pa
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:22:26AM -0400, Jose Parrella wrote:
> Michael Stone escribi?:
> > Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete junk--the
> > "every package is sacred crowd" comes along every time this topic comes
>
> I think I've learned that, too.
>
> I don't really s
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > reopen 370087
> > thanks
> >
> > Re: Debian Bug Tracking System 2006-06-09 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> Please include the packages description on packages.qa.debian.org.
> >> >
Dear QA list,
This is a follow-up to this email:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/05/msg00026.html
in which I listed 51 packages that have old RC bugs and very low popcon
numbers (less than or about equal to 10 installations reported). [The
52nd package is interchange-doc, which i
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:22:26AM -0400, Jose Parrella wrote:
> I don't really support this idea but: what if a branch of the archive is
> opened where this packages could be put in and Debian makes a explicit
> statement indicating that packages there are orphaned or very little
> maintained? Thi
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> If it gets dropped entirely, then the user doesn't get any notice of
>> that fact; their system just keeps on going as before. Except that
>> the package now gets *no* updates instead of minimal ones.
> Basically, this am
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 09:51:28AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>>Basically, this amounts to perpetually keeping obsolete packages. Is a
>>good choice?
>
> Well, at least you've learned why debian has so much obsolete
> junk--the "every package is sacre
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After a suitable period of time to collect replies (two weeks), I plan
> to write to the debian-qa mailing list. I'll give a summary of the
> source packages listed at the first URL above for which I received
> affirmative, negative, and no respons
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>After a suitable period of time to collect replies (two weeks), I plan
>>to write to the debian-qa mailing list. I'll give a summary of the
>>source packages listed at the first URL above for which I received
>>aff
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
be useless" is incorrect.
You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantiated.
The process of identifying potentially problematic package
Hi Michael!
You wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
> >be useless" is incorrect.
>
> You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantiated.
> The process of identif
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
>>be useless" is incorrect.
>
> You've made this assertion several times, it's still
> unsubstantiated.
Wow, a
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Michael!
>
> You wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>>> But a bulk "anything that is orphaned and has a low popcon number must
>>> be useless" is incorrect.
>> You've made this assertion several times, it's still unsubstantia
Hi Luk!
You wrote:
> This is only the starting list, there were other criteria [1] mentioned
> already a couple of times before a package would be filed for removal! I
> don't get why that has to repeated every time again?
>
> [1]:
> (a) aren't ITAed, and
> (b) have been orphaned for more than,
18 matches
Mail list logo
