Control: tags -1 + wontfix Control: close -1 Hi Nicholas,
On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 09:27:46PM -0500, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > I'm pretty sure that I didn't receive this email because I orphaned this > package. Emacs and related package are in a better state now, and > markdown-toc has a living upstream, and our package needs to import > their work as well as resolve some other issues [1]. tldr: The RC bug > can be solved now. Thank you for caring about the package. From my point of view, triaging the (no longer) RC bug is exactly what was needed here. As you did that, I no longer see a reason to remove the package. Thus closing the removal bug. > Can this sentence can be rephrased, because "silent consent to > proceed…is assumed" strikes me as creepy and socially problematic. Yes, > I know it's intended and a friendly and collaborative way...If it > actually means that nobody cares enough to bother, than can the message > be changed to something like that? Thank you for the feedback. I have rephrased it as follows and hope this addresses your concern. | Since the suggestion bug was neither closed nor tagged in a month, lack of | interest in the package is assumed and removal is pursued. I hope that the reason for these removals is sufficiently clear. Every single package imposes a cost on Debian (and its QA teams in particular) in many ways. When the package is autoremoved due to RC bugs and nobody is working on the problem, my view is that the cost is not suitably offset by the value gained from keeping it (e.g. no stable or testing users can use the package). Having someone invest time into such bugs changes that balance. For that reason, anyone just sending a mail to the RC bug will prevent my autoremover from taking action. Should that be more clear in the bug templates? Helmut
