Re: outdated leaf packages
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 23:22 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:43:42PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:22 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Svante Signell, le Thu 17 Mar 2011 19:43:09 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 19:02 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > > > olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net, le Thu 17 Mar 2011 18:12:40 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > > > Perhaps we could put some of these packages on debian-ports?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, let's try to simply have them fixed in Debian itself first :)
> > > >
> > > > Even if the binary packages are removed from GNU/Hurd is it still
> > > > possible to port them?
> > >
> > > No, I'm saying that we can drop them from the list of packages to be
> > > removed, and work on fixing them.
> > To clarify: I meant, are the (recent) source packages still available
> > by apt-get sources 'package', even if the binaries are gone?
> the latest source package is always available, assuming only the
> hurd-i386 binary package gets removed and not all of them.
OK, why not remove these binary packages to make Debian people happy,
and successively re-introduce them when they build properly. I assume
here that the binary packages does not need to go through the new queue
again (and that there will be no problems adding the architecture
support again, in case it is removed).
(Thanks also to Emilio for your reply on this issue.)
BTW: You can remove netspeed from the list, se bug #618745