Re: Bug#886835: Should sitplus package be droped from Debian (Was: Bug#886835: sitplus fails to start because GTK+ 2.x and GTK+ 3 in the same process is not supported)
- To: Luis Rivas <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Cc: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>, Debian Med Project List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#886835: Should sitplus package be droped from Debian (Was: Bug#886835: sitplus fails to start because GTK+ 2.x and GTK+ 3 in the same process is not supported)
- From: Olly Betts <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:07:38 +1300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20191010200738.GA17556@survex.com>
- In-reply-to: <20180801042618.GA25583@survex.com>
- References: <151558770254.4431.5125462818152630609.reportbug@fenchel> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <151558770254.4431.5125462818152630609.reportbug@fenchel> <CABsJszx5pPJ79ZM7QTiFdX2F4dc6sofqtjm8FTuOWx58bG0JNg@mail.gmail.com> <151558770254.4431.5125462818152630609.reportbug@fenchel> <20180801042618.GA25583@survex.com>
On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 04:26:18PM +1200, Olly Betts wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 04:47:48PM +0100, Luis Rivas wrote:
> > On 10 January 2018 at 13:46, Andreas Tille <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > just a note for sitplus: This package definitely needs more love.
> > > Upstream has released a new version a long time ago but it has split a
> > > separate library which needs to be packaged separately.
> > >
> > > I'm personally lacking the time resources to care for this package.
> > >
> > > Any volunteer or is it possibly better to drop the package at all
> > > if it is not running?
> > I'm afraid I don't have the time for taking care of this package. So,
> > unless someone else volunteers, probably it's for the better to drop
> > the package for now.
> I suspect this particular issue would be fixed by updating the wxWidgets
> build-dependency from libwxgtk3.0-dev to libwxgtk3.0-gtk3-dev (the
> former uses GTK+ 2.x, the latter GTK+ 3.x), though if nobody's able to
> look after the package properly, perhaps it's better to drop it.
It's more than a year later - has anyone shown interest in updating
If not, I propose to reassign this bug as an RM with ftpmaster. The
package can be updated and reintroduced should somebody step forward
to do the work (and a new library package means it would need a trip
through NEW either way).
I realise letting go of a package is often not easy, but having a broken
package in unstable doesn't benefit anyone, wastes the time of unstable
users who try to install it only to discover it doesn't even run, and
incurs a cost to people managing transitions - e.g. #915592, #922597,