Auditing bugs in removed packages (was: Re: Find the right... package?)

[Micah Gersten]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 05/26/2010 11:59 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:13:56AM -0500, Micah Gersten wrote:
>> On 05/26/2010 10:44 AM, Brian Murray wrote:
>>> 
>>> This sounds like something worth recording on a TODO list for the Bug
>>> Squad.  I think there should be some on going tasks like this one and one
>>> time tasks like "package xyz was removed from the archive and all its
>>> bug tasks should be reviewed for SRU-able bugs and the rest set to Won't
>>> Fix".
>>>  
>>> --
>>> Brian Murray
>>> Ubuntu Bug Master
>>>
>>
>> I suggest there be a mail to the devel list before doing this.  A
>> package might be coming back in the next release, but was unusable in
>> the current release, or maybe it was unmaintainable for 3 yrs, but 1.5
>> is fine.
> 
> I'd hope that information like that is included in "removal_comment" for
> the source package.  Looking at an old results set a lot of the packages
> were removed from Debian.  Consider the following:
> 
> "(From Debian) RoQA; orphaned, dead upstream, php4 based, low popcon"
> 
> But of course if the removal reason was vague contacting the devel
> mailing list makes absolute sense.
> 
> --
> Brian Murray
> Ubuntu Bug Master
> 

Well, I know of one specific example in my case was lightning-sunbird
which was removed from Lucid.  The deletion message just references the
new xulrunner support model, but it's not clear that the package will be
resurrected as lightning in Maverick.  The reason for this is that
upstream discontinued development on Sunbird, but as you can see, that's
not apparent from the deletion message.  But I agree with you about the
stuff that was removed from Ubuntu because it was removed from Debian.

Micah
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkv9eVcACgkQTniv4aqX/VnJ+gCfZ5u+OnuoBxqPPUtkVJfsyTIU
gcQAn3FxFwpFaQHLXqNIQjjC04rTB3Ns
=D7I9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----