On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 07:28:52AM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> please allow me to open a can of worms. Package removal from unstable.
> Deciding when it is time to remove a package from unstable is difficult.
> There may be users still and it is unclear whether keeping the package
> imposes a cost. In this mail I want to argue for more aggressive package
> removal and seek consensus on a way forward.

Yes please.

> What does package removal cost?
> 
> Before a package can be removed, it needs to be reviewed for reverse
> dependencies and if there are any, they have to be switched to something
> else or removed as well. 

(leaf packages are much more straightforward to remove because of this)

> Human readable explanation:
>  * Packages in sid
>  * not in bookworm or trixie
>  * not a key package
>  * affected by an RC bug that has been last modified more than a year ago
>  * not among a few selected exceptions

Makes sense, though non-leaf ones can't be processed automatically and so
I'm not sure what can be done with them.

If we don't want to mass-remove all of these, there are additional
criteria (that I sometimes use to file manual removals) that can be added,
though not all of them are possible to determine automatically:

* Leaf package
* A "library" (something not useful by itself)
* FTBFS - these can't be binNMUed, NMUed etc. without fixing an unrelated
  bug first so they are in a worse condition thatn others in the context
  we are discussing
* "Doesn't work at all" - these are not useful to users.
* Orphaned

> Let us assume that we agree on there being a set of packages to be
> removed. What is a reasonable process? Is it ok to just file a pile of
> RoQA bugs or is more warning warranted? Should we maybe use a process
> similar to salvaging where there is an "ITR" (intent to remove) bug that
> is reassigned to ftp after a reasonable timeout?

Removing packages that aren't formally orphaned always sounds too bold to
me, though it should be fine if we formalize a process (any process) for
that.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to