Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned
Thanks for your quick reply.
Anand Kumria <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Hi,
> Sigh. No wonder people dislike you.
> > I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> > picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> > are not in testing are:
> > - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> > - FTBFS or RC bugs
> > - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> > - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)
> > Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> > fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> > caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.
> No, if you going to send out this kind of email you need to look more
> deeply at the problem. swh-plugins requires fftw to work. That doesn't
> because GCC 3.3.3 ICEs on m68k. The fix is in gcc 3.3.4 but you, no
> doubt, already did the work to discover this rather than wasting my
Actually I took the time to compile swh-plugins a few times on m68k
myself a while back. Sorry I overlooked that in the generated list, I
caught a few others.
> Feel free to orphan/nmu gcc, orphan/nmu fftw3 and then nmu (but not
> orphan) swh-plugins. I mean, you _did_ check to see that the package in
Knowing your still around and following the problem is enough. No
> testing versus the package in unstable has significant functionality
> differences to warrant all this, right?
Never saw that stated as a requirement for sarge. :)
> It is nice that you did take the time to look at this problem but I
> think, in future, you'll have a greater degree of success if you email
> people seperately and then do things in public if they don't respond.
Then I couldn't look for the maintainer and for other DDs using the
package at the same time. Twice the waiting period.