Universe QA for Hardy

Michael Bienia michael at vorlon.ping.de
Thu Nov 1 13:39:43 GMT 2007

On 2007-10-31 12:37:28 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> Hardy should have no Not Built from Source, Failed To Build From
> Source, or Outdated packages:

What should happen to packages which still depend on packages in the NBS
list? See e.g. sear now (stuck in 6 lib package transitions) and IIRC
FTBFS with the new packages (needs porting to the new API).

What should happen with packages which FTBFS and where no fix is
available currently?
AFAIK it's not possible to remove the binaries only, so the whole
package must be removed from the archive.
- Does it matter if the package FTBFS on all architectures or only on
- When should the package be removed? And what about reverse (build-)
- Is it allowed to enter again when a fix is available? When is the

We should ask the archive admins about their opinion on this point as
it's them who need to source-NEW and bin-NEW the packages again.

> If requesting the
> removal of a package, please consider:
> 1)  Removal of the package should not break any other packages
> 2)  There should be a replacement that provides the functionality
> 3)  There should be a transition plan for users
>     In some cases this means the upload of dummy packages to point to
> the replacements.  In some cases this means adjustment of dependencies
> / recommendations / suggestions to indicate the correct package.  In
> some cases, no action is required.

Add 2): What about software which is dead upstream and the package got
removed from Debian? Should we keep that package? What if no replacement
is available?
Does the requirement for a replacement also applies to library packages?

Add 3): Should a transition plan for already removed packages (like
apache1 or php4) be added?
How automatic should the transition be? What if no automatic transition


More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list