On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:18:28PM -0500, 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.
I don't think it should be the sole decision of the maintainer to get a package removed. Like in the case at hand: Last maintainer upload was in 2014. Maintainer does nothing (including no action on a "new upstream release" bug from a user in 2014). Maintainer files RM bug in 2018. Why does the maintainer have the sole decision here? The package would have been in a better state had it been a QA-maintained orphaned package since 2014. > If it's important, someone who cares enough should re-introduce the package. This works nicely, assuming the user who needs the package is a DD and notices immediately. For normal users who are not following unstable the situation is less rosy. And if a normal user would notice immediately, what could he/she do? Even an RFP to get a perfectly working package re-added just like it was before the removal has close to zero chance of being acted on. > Scott K cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed