Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 04/12/09 at 09:37 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:38:42PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> Why do you want to duplicate the information between bapase and the >>> usertags? I find it quite hard to use usertags to following such complex >>> information. >> I got convinced recently that we should be more aggressive about removal >> requests, also I don't think that such an activity should remain >> confined under the "QA hat". Hence I'm trying to make the process more >> distributed: as every DD can make an NMU, IMO every DD should feel free >> to propose the removal of a crappy package. The process I tried to >> summarize is an attempt in that direction. >> >> Now, I don't want to interfere with the bapase workflow (BTW, is bapase >> regularly running? the report link from the wiki was 404 yesterday), but >> it surely is not accessible to every DD, since you need commit access to >> collab-qa. > > We could move the .txt file to collab-maint. > The way it works is that the CGI at > http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bapase.cgi does a "svn cat" of the file in > collab-qa to get its information, so it doesn't need to be regularly > running (as in cron job). > > OK. Let's start again. > > Problem statement: > There are some packages in Debian that should be removed from it, > because they have become useless, have better alternatives > in Debian, do not bring enough value (e.g 10-lines shell scripts). > There are also packages who should be kept in Debian, but which were > abandonned by their maintainer(s), and should be orphaned so another > maintainer can pick them up. > > Requirements: > (1) process to propose and proceed with the removal of packages > from Debian, even when the maintainer is unreachable > (2) process to propose and proceed with the orphanage of packages > in Debian, even when the maintainer is unreachable > (3) public processes, to provide effective public review > (4) efficient processes (we are talking about 500+ packages) > > Proposed process (based on the proposal made in this thread): > When someone wants to propose the removal of a package, he/she: > - file a bug on the package, explaining the reasons > + severity: serious (if the package is something we want to remove, > it's not something we want in the next stable release anyway) > + usertagged debian-qa@lists.debian.org / proposed-removal > - wait for at least 50 days, listen to comments made on the bug report > - request the removal (if appropriate) of the package by reassigning > the bug to ftp.debian.org > > Additionally, bapase (http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bapase.cgi) is used > to track packages in that process. It provides an easy way to: > - find packages that have been through the 50-days delay > - find "interesting" packages, based on various criterias > It uses a text file with more information than what can be easily provided > via usertags, so: > - people who propose a lot of removals are encouraged to add information > to bapase directly > - a way to list packages that have had proposed-removal bugs filed, but > are not tracked in bapase, is added to bapase. > > Problem not addressed: we probably need a way for people to report > packages that probably need removal. People might not want to do the > process themselves. This could be with an additional email alias > @qa.debian.org. > > Comments?
Hi folks, Sorry for jumping in late here but as someone who does quite a few removals/orphans/etc how is this much different than the current process? (Other than moving bapase to collab-maint. Also, just out of curiosity, why 50 days? Seems like a strange number. Also do you think there will be enough interest to warrant another mailing address? Thanks! Barry deFreese -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
