Re: libpoppler3 missing in unstable
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:55:52PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> > > Normally, we keep the lib$foo$N and add lib$foo$N+1. By withdrawing
> > > libpoppler3 you broke the buildability of hundreds of package with tex
> > > documentation. Was there a reason?
>
> Uploading libfoo2 and making libfoo1 disappear are actually done by
> different people. Removal of obsolete binaries is done by the ftpteam,
> I’m putting them on the loop via Bcc, and moving the discussion to
> -devel.
>
> ftpteam, would you be open to discussing a well-defined policy about
> removal of NBS libraries from unstable? Personally I couldn’t care less
> about installability problems on user’s machines running unstable: my
> take is that those machines should have testing in sources.list, period.
> However, rendering important parts of the toolchain uninstallable is
> something different.
As the current "RM Master" ;) I see two realistic possibilities:
1) Someone just write me a mail if I should some part of the cruft
report or ping me on IRC. This would of course scale to a few cases
only.
2) Someone improve the cruft report so that I can see how many packages
still depend on the package to be removed, so I can try to make my
own judgement.
I will not be able to indivdually investigate each cruft package
for this specific problem.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: