On Friday, February 02, 2018 06:44:36 PM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 02:29:49AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Currently, RM bugs are filed against ftp.debian.org.
> > >
> > > It might make sense to have them filed against ftp.debian.org *and* the
> > > package to be removed, instead. That way, people who care about the
> > > package are more likely to see that it is about to be removed, and can
> > > take corrective action if they don't want to have that happen?
> > It'd probably make sense to use
> > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects for this.
> How would that help?
> Subject: RM: hello -- RoM; obsolete
> Control: affects -1 src:hello
> For the few days or hours between the RM bug being filed and the
> package actually being removed, this would show up at
> The chances of someone looking at this specific BTS page during the
> short amount of time between it showing up there and the actual
> removal are close to zero.
I think we are going to modify the pending removals page to indicate which
requests are recent or have recent activity on the bug. I think that will put
at least a little cushion in. As the FTP team member processing most of the
rm bugs recently, what I mostly want is to have to touch the bug once. Once
there's a visual indication it should be left to ripen for now, I'll be glad
to do that.
> BTW: And then the next problem would be that the ftp team tends
> to ignore non-maintainer objections in RM bugs and removes
> the package anyway.
If in the maintainer's opinion it's better to remove the package than to leave
it in the archive unmaintained, I think this is generally appropriate (see my
previous mentions about not thinking FTP team should second guess
maintainers). The one exception is if a non-maintainer objects to a removal
and the objection includes them saying they will take over maintenance. Of
course that almost never happens.