Hi Maytham, On 11/8/26 09:39, Maytham Alsudany wrote:
Hi debian-mentors,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.
That's good to know re: targeting other distributions, or lack thereof.
Is it worth entertaining RFS requests for such software? 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?
It depends. I've made a few exceptions when the upstream author can reasonably explain that there is a userbase, and it's going to be actively maintained, but for most of these, I think they should be closed. I don't think it makes sense to force a project-wide requirement here, but it would make sense to clearly explain something like this on a landing page. I also think that we should be polite and respectful to those people who have opened bugs, even if we're closing them. There's also another argument to be made about the age of the bugs. It would be one thing if there was a recommendation not to sponsor from one DD and another DD did it anyway. On the other hand, for these bugs, *none* of the DDs interested in sponsoring packages have picked them up, recommendation against or not. That should speak for something. I'm absolutely +1 on closing the bugs that are older than a few months at this point, if they match the criteria of self-authored. The downside to automatically closing those old bugs is that we might actually miss a valid one, so should be handled manually. I'm happy to help with bug triage if we decide a direction here. Best regards, Simon Quigley [email protected]
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
