On August 20, 2024 12:16:47 PM UTC, Andrey Rakhmatullin <w...@debian.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 12:12:33PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> >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.
>> >
>> The process currently is file an rm but against ftp.debian.org for removal
>> from unstable using RoQA (remember, we're all QA) explaining the rationale
>> and an FTP Team member will assess it and remove the package if it seems
>> reasonable (the above criteria are quite reasonable in that regard).
>>
>> There are people doing this, we could use more, but it does happen. I've
>> processed lots of these and it's virtually always fine. In the rare case of
>> a mistake, the cost to rectify the mistake is a trip through New.
>>
>> I don't think we need more process.
>
>Oh, I'm sure it's fine both for people filing these and the FTP team, I'm
>worried about reactions from the maintainers of those packages.
>
For those cases, the people who have been doing this will sometimes file a bug
against the package as a heads up and then as for the removal a bit later. Of
course I don't ever see the ones where the maintainer objects and nothing
further comes of it, but my impression is it's rare.
I do recall, at least once, suggesting an upload to experimental to keep the
package in the archive, but get it out of the way in unstable. I think that
there have been less than a handful of unhappy maintainers. When someone
complains, I ask them to reupload the package and give it a priority review in
New (usually I also avoid snark about if you want to maintain the package, then
maintain the package).
For most of the packages that fall into this category, I don't think maintainer
reaction is a major issue.
I don't think we ought to take the human out of the loop and fully automate
this as that would be more likely to have problematic results.
Scott K
