Re: A Round of Removals
Jochen Voss <jvoss2@web.de> writes:
> 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".
If non-free binary-only packages have security issues, screw them. And
there are free replacements for both, xpdf and all those browsers.
However, for some other packages I wonder how the decision was made to
remove/keep them, two examples:
- libprague is scheduled for removal, though the RC bug is only filed
to keep berlin from going to testing. This seems non-sensical to me.
- timidity-patches is not scheduled for removal, though it has a very
dubious legal status, i.e. the copyright file does not state which
copyright applies to it. (Well, the reason could be that this bug is
"only" 78 days old with no comment from the maintainer whatsoever...)
And for a different matter:
> geomview
[...]
> libutahglx-dev
How about this? The build failure of geomview seems to be caused by
libutahglx-dev falsely claiming MESA compliance. I was about to NMU
geomview with a Build-Conflicts: libutahglx-dev, but if the latter
gets removed anyway, this seems to be moot. (Well, it does not do any
harm either.)
Lukas
Reply to: