Re: A Round of Removals
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:58:36AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > Those of you who didn't sense the malicious subtext of the above,
> > > may wish to have another look at that URL fairly soon. In particular,
> > > a large number of effectively unmaintained packages on that list have
> > > been marked for removal. [...]
> >
> > Is there a list available with just the [REMOVE] packages, rather than
> > getting the lists of all packages and searching
>
> I doubt that all of these packages are "effectively unmaintained",
> but from dissecting the html file I get the following list.
> Prominent entries are "acroread" and "netscape".
Both acroread and netscape have security bugs that we CANNOT reasonably fix
due to their non-freeness. These are probably two of the most justified
removals. It is possible that newer versions of Netscape Navigator (at
least 4.79 seems to exist) may fix this bug, but I cannot say for sure.
Newer versions of Acrobat Reader are not redistributable (see the BTS), so
this needs to go anyway.
Good riddance to most of these packages.
> global
Clint Adams has already rescued global from removal, but it looks like it
needs a new maintainer.
> kaffe
An RC bug with a one-line patch in the BTS for 158 days? Surely someone
cares more about kaffe. If not, perhaps gcj and sablevm will provide
replacement functionality.
> kpackage
kpackage's RC bug has been tagged 'pending' for 5 months...perhaps someone
forgot to make an upload?
> ngrep
ngrep's bug is arguably inflated; it only affects sparc. There is a patch
there, though, if anyone cares about it.
--
- mdz
Reply to: