On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 21:25:58 +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > Ok but I don't see how this bug differs from #915550 and #915876 for both > > of which the intent seems to remove the corresponding packages. > > > > Shouldn't this package also be considered for removal? > > Perhaps. We usually leave it a while in case it is upgraded, as the cost > of having around for "a while" in unstable only is judged cheaper than > the extra work needed to remove it and then reintroduce it. I think this > is mostly a matter of personal opinion and we don't have a firm policy > on this, but I'm sure other list members will correct me if I'm wrong.
This matches my impression of our habits as well. I'd just like to add that the "maintenance cost" can be zero (no releases, no bugs, no nothing) or can be high (e.g. breakage with each new perl release) or anything in between. And our habit seems to be that if there's no or hardly any work needed there's also no particular need to trigger the removal steps. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Tom Waits: Tom Traubert's Blues
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
