Re: finally end single-person maintainership
Bill Alombert wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 04:04:18PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Hi Wouter,
>>
>> Am Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:31:43PM +0200 schrieb Wouter Verhelst:
>> > [Feel free to quote any part of this email which I wrote outside of this
>> > mailinglist]
>>
>> OK, moving the discussion to debian-devel where it should belong.
>>
>> > Debian packages need to be well maintained. In some cases, having
>> > multiple maintainers on a package improves the resulting quality of
>> > packages. But in some other cases, it does not; one example for this
>> > second case is my package "logtool", which I'm going to upload to fix
>> > #1066251 soon and for which by the simple act of doing that I will
>> > double the amount of uploads it's seen in the past five years (and the
>> > number of uploads in the past 10 can still be counted on the fingers of
>> > a single hand).
>> >
>> > This is not because it's not well maintained; it's because the package
>> > just *does not require* a lot of work to be kept up to date: upstream
>> > has not been active for over 20 years, but it still performs the job it
>> > was designed to do, as it was designed to, and I see no need to have it
>> > removed from the archive.
>>
>> What is your opinion about pushing logtool to Salsa?
>
>Not speaking for logtool obviously, but maintaining simple packages on salsa is
>just useless bureaucracy.
So that's OK for *you* only in this case. Now consioder for the
project as a whole. Every package that differs from the norm is more
effort for anybody else to maintain/bugfix/NMU/whatever. We have a
history of this (in so many ways), and it's a significant drain.
Please consider the bigger picture.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
Reply to: