On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 9:11:29 AM AEST Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:14:14PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > > Anyway I guess my frustration is more about how packages are being > > removed in general -- not just this particular one. > > umh? Very quick removals are very nice and useful. What's wrong with > them?
IMHO that removals are too often unexpected. Removals from "testing" are
noticeable in PTS and announced beforehand over email. However removals from
"unstable" are sudden and unexpected.
Autoremovals from "tetsing" have a lot more visibility so prospective
maintainers have a chance to step in and improve situation.
I wish how-can-i-help could notice about scheduled removals from "unstable"
but for that removals should have some retention time.
> One of them (I usually go the RC bug way) is usually (!= always) what
> happens for RoQA, but for ROM this doesn't make much sense most of the
> time...
True. But ROMs do not take into account when packages are requested for
removal by mistake especially while depending packages are processed through
NEW queue...
It is always unpleasant to find that package you've installed just yesterday
(because you needed it) is no longer available... Of course that does not
include removals of obsolete packages after transitions.
We should not be hasty to remove seemingly unused packages. When in doubt I'd
rather mark 'em for exclusion from "testing" with a "serious" bug.
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except
all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Churchill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
