Hi Simon,
9 Nov 2026 3:09:52 am Simon Quigley <[email protected]>:
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.
I've written a small script to compile that info, see
https://rfs.debian.aezign.au/upstream.html
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.
Agreed, there are always exceptions but this applies to most of these
bugs.
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.
mentors.d.n should probably be clearer about what should be in Debian,
based on existing info about new packages in the Developer's Reference. A
checklist would be helpful e.g. unique functionality no other package
does, substantial userbase, explaining that Debian repos are supposed to
make it easiee to install software people are already installing and
using through other means.
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.
Yeah, not automatic, but manually going through bugs that haven't had any
sponsor or where the submitter hasn't responded to a moreinfo for over
1-2 months seems reasonable to me.
I'm happy to help with bug triage if we decide a direction here.
--
Maytham
