Re: RM omins, om, vcf
On Sunday 14 October 2007 20:59:54 tim hall wrote:
> Joost Yervante Damad wrote:
> > On Sunday 14 October 2007 11:32:28 tim hall wrote:
> >> I wrote:
> >>> I think it would be a better idea to put out an RFP on ingen
> >>
> >> Judging by the complete lack of bug reports against om, I'm guessing the
> >> package fails to run on anyone's system.
> >
> > AFAIK it runs fine on 32bit intel machines.
> >
> >> I think om should be Orphaned,
> >> I know that might seem slightly odd, considering that it is a
> >> co-maintained package already, but this action may result in the most
> >> appropriate outcome.
> >
> > Which is ? (Which outcome?)
>
> Am I being a bit obtuse? Sorry I'll try to clarify:
>
> I am assuming from previous conversations that you want to stop
> maintaining om.
> I am also assuming that Free would appreciate a co-maintainer if
> om/ingen continues to be maintained by debian-multimedia or that it
> would be worthwhile to find a DD who wants to take sole responsibility.
>
> If om runs fine on 32bit intel machines (apart from mine) then it is
> still potentially useful in its present form, however it will present
> problems in future if it FTBFS on other architectures or generates any
> RC bugs.
>
> I am suggesting RFPing ingen and Orphaning om so as to put the kind of
> entries in the WNPP list that might attract an interested DD.
In this sense I understand your reasoning. I'll orphan om. However I won't
file a RFP for ingen, as I don't plan on using it, if anyone else plans to
use it, they should file a RFP :)
> That is
> the outcome I'd like I guess. I'm hoping it would be apparent that in
> fact it is ingen that needs the work, with om being replaced with a
> dummy package for upgrade purposes. It may be that there is a more
> straightforward way of doing this.
If om gets kicked out of the archive, ingen could very easially have a
Provides: om
line, which has mostly the same effect as a dummy package. Dummy packages are
best avoided if not really needed.
> The one major reservation to all this is that I'm guessing, due to om's
> low popcon rating and lack of bug-reports, that I'm the only person who
> actually cares about this application and that only because it might be
> useful in theory. In which case I might as well build ingen from source
> and forget about it.
I guess it makes sense if you would RFP it. I checked the source and it seems
not a trivial package to package.
> I'm persevering with this thread because I suspect om/ingen may be worth
> the effort. It does appear to have 30 actual users. I suspect that
> several people have installed and forgotten about it because of the lack
> of menu entry. I also suspect that most users may not be aware that an
> om package exists for Debian. The lack of response from anyone else is
> starting to confirm those suspicions.
>
> I'd also be very grateful if anyone wants to challenge my assumptions,
> suggestions and suspicions on this matter. :) Apologies if this is
> gratuitously verbose.
Thanks for explaining your reasoning.
Joost
Reply to: