On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 05:44:43 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > Anyway, since there is no hard reverse dependency in Sid anymore, IMHO > we should either: > > * File an RM bug and remove it also from Sid > * Lower the severity of #608583 and let it migrate to testing again. > > Keeping it in Sid with (nearly) no reverse dependency, but not wanting > to release it with Jessie makes no sense IMHO. Ack, I'm also in favour of taking a decision between those 2 alternatives. Thanks for bringing this back on our virtual table. > (While I was clearly in favour of keeping it in the past, I'm now > rather undecided. I still think that this module is in better shape > than upstream claims. No bug reports in Debian and only a few known > issues upstream. And all claimed alternatives being rather bloaty and > more complex IMHO.) I have no strong opinion since I've never used the package or its alternatives; but if -- as you describe -- it works and has a low maintainance overhead, I'm slightly leaning towards keeping it, i.e. lowering the severity. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Joel Harrison: Lonesome road blues
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature