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

Re: package-superseded-by-perl

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 03:14:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:33:47 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:

> > The tradeoff I can see is that removal from sid means a trip to NEW if we
> > ever want/need to reintroduce them, but keeping them in sid indefinitely
> > bloats the archive etc. In the case where the separate package is actually
> > uninstallable (currently just libextutils-parsexs-perl), having it in sid
> > is also a burden to other developers doing archive wide CI testing etc.
> I'm a bit ambiguous; in cases which are broken in sid
> (libextutils-parsexs-perl) just removing them makes sense of course.

Cool. I'll request removal of libextutils-parsexs-perl soon unless
somebody objects.

> In all other cases I consider the cost of keeping them minimal enough
> to not jump through current or future hoops, at least if there are
> signs of activity and a trace of needing newer versions.

Works for me if we can come up with an activity threshold so we don't
have to have this discussion every time.

> So from an activity and upstream maintenance point of view,
> libio-socket-ip-perl (Paul), libsocket-perl (Paul), libtest-harness-perl
> (Leon) (and maybe libmodule-metadata-perl) might be candidates for
> keeping.

This feels about right to me.

> For the future (as we face the same question before each release)
> maybe we can (at a sprint?) come up with some guidelines?
> Like "no release in the last 2 years" or something?

Works for me; I propose we set policy at that and revisit it
later if needed?

Reply to: