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

Re: out of date packages to be removed?

On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 09:43 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Wed 27 Mar 2013 09:17:50 +0100, a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 01:51 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Below is a list of packages which are out of date, which I consider
> > > asking ftp-master to remove.  Packages with a couple of spaces before
> > > are removals needed to turn the out of date packages leaves.
> > > 
> > > Anybody see any red flag among these before I submit the removal
> > > request?
> > 
> > Until Wheezy is released these packages will not be patched to
> > build on GNU/Hurd.
> So?
> We have always done so to avoid archive cluttering.  This is not new.

I was referring to a debian maintainer adding a hurd-specific patch into
sid->testing, that won't happen. These bug reports+patches are just
rotting in the BTS until Wheezy is released. Am I missing something

> If somebody really wants a package, he can grab the source and patch.
> That's *precisely* I asked for red flags on some particular package
> that we'd *want* to keep because they are so useful: I've for instance
> excluded emacs23, gdb, etc.

Do you mean building a package for personal reasons then, not entering
either the main archive or -ports? Regarding emacs23 it still does not
build, and gdb builds with an already submitted patch (including a
change of the gcc restricted code word MACH). Where is that package
going to be hosted, until after Wheezy is released, in -ports? These
excepted packages, don't they also clutter the archive?

> > Or is your plan to host these packages at debian-ports?
> I don't plan to spend the time to do such thing myself: most of them are
> just not buildable in the current state. The few of them which just need
> a patch could be built. I just do *not* have any time to upload them,
> since there are far more important priorities, like getting buildds
> administrated by DSA, fixing bugs in libc, possibly fixing the https
> issue in firefox, etc. etc. That's way more important that getting e.g.
> rrdtool built...

What is your plan wrt the unofficial Wheezy release of Hurd? The latest
patches to eglibc are now at -ports, and would probably stay there,
never entering the main archive. The next eglibc will be based on 2.18+.
And the latest Hurd is there too.

With eglibc and hurd at -ports, doesn't that cause a big problem wrt
dependencies of other packages being in main?

Reply to: