On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:23:51AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > If it's orphaned+RC-buggy but it Works For Me™, it's good to stay, right?
This doesn't compute. A package can be orphaned and still perfectly functional; a package can be orphaned and RC-buggy. A package cannot, however, be RC-buggy and in a "still works" state. If it's genuinely RC buggy, then by definition it no longer works properly or it's causing problems. If it's RC buggy because the environment changed and it's now holding back a transition or some such, then it's actively causing problems and should be fixed or removed. If it's RC buggy because it broke and now crashes on startup, then it, well, broke and should be fixed or removed. If it's RC buggy because someone had a bad case of "my use case is the most important one in the world and this package should be fixed NOW", then, well, fix the severity (it can be "important" without being RC buggy) and it can remain. But if a package is RC buggy, then it is *broken*, and should either be removed or fixed. You don't need to take over maintenance of a package, but if you think it's important enough to be retained in the archive, ensuring that it at least doesn't have any RC bugs anymore shouldn't be too much to ask. If you can't do that, then it's perfectly normal for it to be removed. -- Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!? -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008 Hacklab