Am 9. November 2026 01:19:26 UTC schrieb Maytham Alsudany <[email protected]>: >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 >
I agree with maytham that we should have some minimum quality baseline for new packages. Especially if sponsoree == upstream my experience is that the package many times eventually just will bitrot in the archives just after a bit. (of course there are exeptions to this; afterall /me started my Debian career this way) It is usually a good sign if the sponsoree holds other packages as well. regarding qa criterias, we've got https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide possibly we could also make it more clear, (and also do it then) that we'll remove package if they are not cared for properly and set that expectation clearly. -- tobi (on mobile, excuse brevity)
