Re: Outdated leaf packages to be removed

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

Hi,

wow, thanks for looking through them!

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:30:54AM +0100, Pino Toscano wrote:
> On 2014-01-27 00:36, Michael Banck wrote:
> Just few notes about some of the sources in the list:
> 
> >e17
> 
> This was affected by a bug in edje, so it might be given back.
> 
> >chocolate-doom
> >nettoe
> 
> Curiously, these are currently FTBFSing on i386, and our versions
> are the same as other architectures where they built.

Ok.

> >kdesvn
> 
> This should build with subversion >= 1.7, so it might be given back.
> 
> >lightspark
> 
> This one is affected by the fact that somehow (maybe the fakeroot chmod
> race) the binaries built in llvm-toolchain-3.{2,3} are not executable,
> so they cannot be exec'ed as they are.
> 
> >qgo
> 
> This one switched to Qt5 and its QtMultimedia module, so it has OOD
> binaries on few other architectures already.
 
Ok.

> >For the record, this is the query I used:
> 
> Maybe a way to avoid the (few) cases where linux/i386 is lagging behind
> (due to FTBFS) could be running it against amd64 as well, and not
> considering the sources not appearing in both.

Yeah, I'll do that next time.

We'll see about giving back the others, thanks a lot for the analysis.
Probably there are more cases like those in the list of all (not only
leaf) packages...


Michael