Re: why was um-pppd removed?
> (please keep the CC to debian-hurd)
(please set Mail-Followup-To, next time. Even though my primary client
keeps the Cc without that, mutt does not)
> > It was up for adoption for about a year, or maybe more. Neal promised he
> > would adopt it, he didn't. There were no NMUs, despite the fact that
> > um-pppd didn't build from source. I considered that lack of interest.
>
> that just means it should be orphaned, not that it should be removed from
> the archive.
It is a very valid reason to request its removal. If there is _no_
activity for a year, nor a request to me, to actually apply the
patches in the BTS and upload, nor an NMU, nor adoption, then the
package clearly has zero users. If it has zero users, it has nothing
to do in the archive.
> A package shouldn't be removed from debian unless we don't have any
> expectation to get it fixed.
Well.. since a whole year passed during which it was orphaned, it had
serious bugs filed against it, and no action was taken, that clearly
meant to me there is no interest in it, nor is a fix (in shape of a
new maintainer) likely to come.
If it would have been so important, someone would have adopted it, and
you'd have discovered its removal way earlier.
> > I'd also add that until the serial port driver doesn't work in GNU,
> > um-pppd is virtually useless, which means it shouldn't be kept in
> > Debian, imo.
>
> the serial port drivers does work on GNU, it just has a limit of 36kb/s
Great. Last time I checked, it was around ~4800 bps, which is just a
wee-bit better than not working at all.
In this case, you'll just have to reintroduce um-pppd and have fun.
Reply to: