On Sun, Nov 08, 2026 at 11:39:07PM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
Out of the 115 currently open RFS bugs, around 47 of them have the some packager as the upstream maintainer. For most of these, the software was one-shot created, has no long-term maintenance, and has virtually no users. Another indicator is that these packages do not exist in any other distribution.Is it worth entertaining RFS requests for such software?
In my opinion, no. I'm closing the worst of them and commenting on some of the others, as it's not evident that all potential sponsors realize this.
But not all DDs agree with me: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1146337#13And we don't have package inclusion guidelines, so what happens to RFSes we don't close is ultimately "somebody sponsors this" vs "nobody sponsors this", with the former being a decision of a DD while the latter not being a decision at all. It would be nice to be able to make the latter decision but there is no procedure and no persons having power to make such decisions explicitly. And, as the Daniel's reply I linked suggests, there is no project consensus.
Note also that with Bart's scripts no longer running even the route of "no activity on mentors" -> "package removed from mentors" -> "RFS closed on mentors removal" -> "ITP turned into RFP due to no activity" is currently
unavailable.
Otherwise, is there any objection to closing such RFS bugs and their related ITPs, both the old ones currently lingering as well as new ones that come in where little interest has been shown from DDs?
Not from me. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
