Shengjing Zhu <zhsj@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 7:30 PM Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> wrote: >> Shengjing Zhu, what do you think, can we request removal of this package >> from unstable? >> > > Why would you bother with packages that are only in unstable? > I'm not sure how best to handle removal for team maintained packages. > I'm not the one who introduced this package. It's just a leaf package. > So leave it in unstable and if someone wants to pick it up, they don't > need to go through the NEW queue. > Previously I only requested removal of some team maintained packages > that upstream are gone, and I'm pretty sure they will not be used any > more. Okay, I understand. It makes it a bit hard to tell if a new version of a package that cadvisor depends on causes the build failure or if it was there before. Maybe if a package already FTBFS then causing another FTBFS in it is not worth checking for. Perhaps we can just collectively establish a list of packages that we no longer care about as a team, and cadvisor seems to be one, and not let problems with it stop progress on other packages. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature