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

Re: 185 Packages that look orphaned

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

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
testing versus the package in unstable has significant functionality
differences to warrant all this, right? 

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.


 `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
 When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never
 leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada

Reply to: