[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]



On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 01:46:20PM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:

<German personal answer>
Vielen Dank für Deine prompte und ausführliche Antwort. Wenn Du
auf mein erstes (ungeschriehenes) Mail zum selben Thema so
geantwortet hättest, dann hätte ich jetzt nicht schreien müssen.
Also hat es ja immerhin funktioniert ;-)
</German personal answer>

> > I am very sorry for the loud subject of my mail (I know it is bad
> > netiquette), but since I got no satisfying answer on my first mail
> > concerning "disappeared packages" and because the issue is important
> > I decided to try it again with shouting ;-).
> *plonk*

*Whine*: That's not a really suited comment, regarding the given explanation.

> http://bugs.debian.org/75772

Since the submitter of this Bug claimed that webmin belongs to contrib
rather than main, and that the package was accidently uploaded inspite of
an ITP, this bug should also have been filed against webmin, since it is
otherwise hardly possible to easily find this explanation about the removal
of webmin.

> | #67768: w3mir: Can delete all files!
> given that bug I'ld guess w3mir was removed too. Just a guess tho.

Well, I thought so myself. But the real problem is that neither me, nor
apparently you could find out what really happened. This seems to be a
shortcoming in Debian's removal procedures. I suggest that the intent to
remove a package should always be filed as a bug to this package or even
better as a bug to wnpp-peudopackage, so that the information can be
traced with reasonable efforts. Would it be o.k. to file this suggestion
as a wishlist bug against ftp.debian.org?

> E: Package fancylogin has no installation candidate

I know this, but this does not explain what happened to this package
that once existed. There is a bug #69002 filed against fancylogin which
might be the reason for its removal. Here the same applies that I said
above about w3mir. It should be possible to easily find out if and why
a package was removed by checking its bugs or wnpp.

> > There is a further weird package disappearance in unstable: all mgetty
> > packages (execept mgetty-doc) are gone!
> http://bugs.debian.org/80640

Oops, I did not check the BTS again. That is really my stupid fault, - sorry.
However, this bug was filed AFTER my first mail to this list, where I asked
concerning the disappeared packages of mgetty and nobody answered.

> >                                         Hey, these are important packages.
> mgetty is not important, it's extra.

That is a bit nitty-gritty, don't you think? I did not talk about the
position in Debian (I of course know its Extra), but about the "importance"
of these packages.

Kind greetings,

Linux: Who needs GATES in a world without fences?

Reply to: