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

Re: scim and assorted packages



On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:30:11 +0200
Toni Mueller <toni@debian.org> wrote:

> today I received an email from the FTP masters that a pacakge that is
> highly relevant to me, has been pulled from Debian. 

Which package? scim doesn't seem to have been removed.

> I understand that
> most folks are now looking at that ibus stuff (which is imho not ready
> for prime time, yet), but would like to understand better how a package
> with only 1 normal and 2 minor bugs can be pulled, and... how I can stay
> at the front of this.

Was it due to a dependency which needed to be removed for other
reasons. Was this one of the Qt3 related removals?

Packages are removed for more reasons than just to close their bugs, RC
or not. Abandonware is a common reason for removal. Also, packages are
often removed to *avoid* RC bugs when a dependency needs to be removed.
There's always a bug report, there's always a delay to try and find
someone with the time to update the package before the dependency is
removed.
 
> /me tries to carve out some time to aid in scim packaging, which still
> has a *much*, *much* wider range of supported languages and scripts than
> ibus (saying ibus is a replacement for scim is an euphemism, at best).

It's a bit late now to offer help, this close to the freeze. The
package can come back into experimental via NEW, if the reasons for the
removal are fixed. Then someone would need to do the work of creating a
backport after the Wheezy release, after getting the package back into
testing (wheezy+1).

The notice from the ftp-master will link to the bug report detailing
why the package was removed. It would help if you could mention the
specific packages and the specific bug reports.

http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt

Is this the one?

[Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:40:08 +0000] [ftpmaster: Alexander
Reichle-Schmehl] Removed the following packages from unstable:

scim-modules-table |    0.5.9-1 | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64,
kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x,
sparc scim-modules-table | 0.5.9-1+b2 | hurd-i386 scim-tables |
0.5.9-1 | source scim-tables-additional |    0.5.9-1 | all
scim-tables-ja |    0.5.9-1 | all
scim-tables-ko |    0.5.9-1 | all
scim-tables-zh |    0.5.9-1 | all
Closed bugs: 659309

------------------- Reason -------------------
RoQA; orphand, no upstream, out dated
----------------------------------------------
Also closing bug(s): 378158 558636 618314 649881 676016

From the #659309 bug report:

> scim-tables is SCIM's table engine with quite a few table data files
> along with it, which serves some CJK users. It has been several months
> after orphaning the package and nobody stands up to continue to
> maintain it. Users should move to other input method framework
> including ibus and fcitx. There is a so-called new upstream which is
> actually gathering random patches from ordinary users, and they aren't
> actually "maintain" or do actual improvements. I hereby request for
> its removal.

That seems a perfectly good reason to remove a package.

To stay up to date with such things, watch the WNPP messages on this
list. This package was orphaned Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:17:05 - so it's
been over 4 months and nobody came up with the time to maintain it.
There's also wnpp-alert in the devscripts package. The orphaning bug
was reassigned to ftp for removal on Sun, 6 May 2012.

If this isn't the package you're thinking about, then the same methods
will show the detail of the package itself.

Finally, removals only affect those wanting to install the package for
the first time - if you already have it installed, your installation
isn't affected. The packages and dependencies may, of course, change
but as the package is orphaned, it's unlikely that this would be fixed
if the package was retained - indeed it just makes it likely that the
package would be removed at that point as uninstallable and likely
FTBFS which are RC bugs.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgphbcgrsDi1D.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: