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

Re: Considering package removal [glademm]



Hi!

  Thanks for your reply.

Neil Williams schrieb:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:59:33 +0100
> Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>>   As I have never requested removal of an package I'm asking here for
>> some opinions to make sure my thoughts are reasonable. Any comments
>> are welcome!
>>
>> Some Data:
>>
>>  * Popcon inst: 359
>>  * Open Bugs: 6 <= normal
>>  * Last upstream release: May 2005
>>  * priority: optional
>>  * Section: devel
>>   I'm currently maintaining glademm, which is an sourcecode generator
>> producing C++ sources from glade files. While doing so I'm currently
>> going through the pieces upstream left unreleased. However I'm in
>> serious doubt this is worth the trouble.
> 
> To remove a package, file a bug against ftp.debian.org using the
> template of any other RM bugs in the same list. There are no RC bugs in
> glademm - do you need to remove glademm from Lenny or can removal wait
> until after the Lenny release? (You can still file the bug, but be
> clear about whether it needs to be done in Lenny.)

  Jup I know the procedure, I was more in trouble wether it is
reasonable. There is no need I guess to have this done for lenny.

>>   First of all, glademm is unmaintained upstream for years. While this
>> would not be an reason for removal on it's own I see it as an hint.
> 
> It is - as is your reluctance as maintainer.

  I do become automatically upstream maintainer as debian maintainer of
dead software? Interesting way of looking at it.

>>   One of the reasons to go backporting some more recent commits was
>> some bug fixed there (see #335696). But while doing so I realised
>> nearly all test in the testsuit currently fail. While I will
>> certainly be able to at least fix the now present gettext problem it
>> will cause considerable work.
> 
> With a dead upstream, it might simply be easier to remove the package.
> 

  I thought so, the intention of this mail was to get sure it was
reasonable which I assert by your answer.

Regards

  Christoph

-- 
/"\  ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0x0372275D
\ /    Campaign   :
 X   against HTML : Working for Debian
/ \   in eMails   : http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: