Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, maybe the actual situation would be better reflected if one of the > interested parties adopted the package and retitled the O bug to RFA?
Sounds right... >> Therefore I don't think that merely being orphaned is a good criterion >> for removal; especially not until we make sure that all unmaintained or >> badly maintained packages are in fact orphaned. > > Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure how the existence of more > packages that should be orphaned invalidates dealing with those that > presently are. > There's 169 orphaned packages today, why not do something about them? What I meant is that we would start removing moderately buggy, well usable packages (just because they are orphaned), but keep badly buggy, unmaintained packages with lots of annoying bugs - just because nobody has orphaned them, or because the maintainer only shows up to tell people to keep their fingers off the package. When browsing the BTS for a particular question, I frequently run into packages where I think "this looks like unmaintained". But often I don't have time to check whether this is really true. I assume others experience the same, and therefore you can't expect every problematic package to be discussed with care and actually orphaned if found unmaintained. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer