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

Re: out of date packages to be removed?

Svante Signell, le Wed 27 Mar 2013 10:41:50 +0100, a écrit :
> I was referring to a debian maintainer adding a hurd-specific patch into
> sid->testing,

I understood that.

> that won't happen.

Yes, so what?

> These bug reports+patches are just rotting in the BTS until Wheezy is
> released. Am I missing something here?

No. But what is the problem of dropping those packages, just like we
have been dropping out-of-date packages in the past?

> > 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?

A personal package yes, or providing the patch so it can be uploaded to

> Regarding emacs23 it still does not build, and gdb builds with an
> already submitted patch

Yes, still to be fixed, but I felt we should keep them.

> Where is that package going to be hosted, until after Wheezy is
> released, in -ports?

For now in the main archive

> These excepted packages, don't they also clutter the archive?

They do. But that's just a few packages, to be compared with the
hundred that I'm proposing to drop.

> > > 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.

That's the plan yes.

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

Nope. Packages in main don't depend on the -ports eglibc & hurd.


Reply to: