Re: HTML::Munger is gone from CPAN
I mentioned this, but I don't think we should maintain it under our
group. If someone else is interested in maintaining it, I would
suggest it be maintained as a native package.
IMO if the software is unmaintained upstream, it should be removed
from Debian, unless there is a large and established user base (this
does not look to be the case).
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:17:52PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
>> -=| Jonathan Yu, Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 01:53:37PM -0500 |=-
>>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Maximilian Gass <email@example.com>
>>> > This module is no longer on CPAN, the upstream site is gone, its >
>>> > popcount is only 30 and it has no reverse dependencies.
>>> > Should we keep it?
>>> No. I vote we file an RM against it -- having no reverse dependencies and
>>> being unmaintained upstream is sufficient for me. I don't think we should be
>>> keeping unmaintained or poorly maintained software in Debian.
>> Keeping would mean we take over upstream. Although possible, this
>> would be unusual.
> Not necessarily: it is possible to maintain packages in Debian even with the
> upstream sources gone stale or missing.
> - Jonas
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----