On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:36:45 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > What is the best way to proceed? I would increase the severity of the > > bug reports for packages depending on or recommending libmd5-perl to > > important with a note that we will soon ask for removal of libmd5-perl. > > After two weeks, we could ask for removal of libmd5-perl from unstable > > and then raise the severity to serious as the packages would no longer > > be installable or violate policy (recommending a package not in main). > Sounds good. Ack. > I think that NMUs can be used to close the upgraded bugs > after some additional time (two weeks seems to be the universal unit). > After these NMUs land in the archive, the removal request should be > processed without problems. IIRC the ftp-masters remove packages more or less immediately, but at least without waiting for rdepends to be fixed. They'd have to wait for too long I guess :) But that doesn't change the procedure; after removal the other packages are buggy and someone[tm] has to either fix or remove them. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Tanita Tikaram: Trouble
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature