On 01.02.2018 05:18, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, February 01, 2018 11:56:21 AM Paul Wise wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 3:14 AM, Andrej Shadura wrote: >>> For example >> >> Here is another example of a low-quality RM bug; removal at request of >> the maintainer, with no reason stated. >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/887554 >> >> As a result of this, DSA has to resort to stretch or snapshot.d.o for >> out-of-band access to our s390x machines. > > As the FTP team member that processed that removal, I can tell you I think > it's perfectly fine. I don't think the FTP team should be in the business of > second guessing maintainers that say their packages should be removed. > > If it's important, someone who cares enough should re-introduce the package.
Oh wow, I didn't realize x3270 got removed. :( As a user I'd be deeply disappointed by that removal bug because it has zero context. I do feel like there should be at least some. It's fine to say "RoM, dead upstream". But to provide literally no reason is not. I agree that you shouldn't second-guess, but I think you can at least enforce some comment to be present. As someone who now ponders to re-introduce the package I have zero context as well as to why the package got removed and if it's sensible to re-introduce it in the first place. (Note that nothing here is intended to assign some kind of personal blame.) Kind regards Philipp Kern