Re: outdated leaf packages
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:24:09PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 12:12 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 06:16:38PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Michael Banck, le Sun 13 Mar 2011 14:00:47 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > The new list is:
> > >
> > > That looks ok.
> >
> > So should I request removal of all those packages? Anything we'd like
> > to keep (somebody using it regularly, e.g.)?
> >
>
> Is there an urgent need to remove these packages from GNU/Hurd?
Not urgent in that sense, but out-of-date hurd-i386 are an recurring
source of complaints: (i) unless that binary version is also in stable
or testing, the corresponding source package has to be held in the
archive just for hurd-i386, which takes up space, (ii) the BTS
version-tracking (or rather its users) get frequently confused why bugs
are not reported as closed. I might have forgotten others.
I think concerning the upcoming ftp-master meeting this might also be a
nice gesture in terms of cleaning up the archive.
> >From the list we have for example chktex a latex checker recommended by
> lyx, blahtexml for converting TeX equations to MathML, netspeed which I
> use daily under Gnome in Linux, etc. Maybe some effort could be put into
> making (at least some of) these packages build under GNU/Hurd.
Well, no problem keeping some packages around. However, most packages
in Debian are useful to somebody and those packages are still on
snapshot.debian.org.
So if you (or somebody else) actually use some of those on hurd-i386,
just speak up and we remove them before sending off the list.
And sure, that list is also a good starting point for porting, because
we know that version built once on hurd-i386.
Michael
Reply to: