Re: package-superseded-by-perl

[Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>]

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:21:58AM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:25:31PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 22:15:21 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 03:14:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > Great, thanks.
> >  
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > Cool.
> >  
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > Ok; are going the file RM bugs for the other packages from your list
> > as well or would you like to leave this to someone else?
> >  
> > > > 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?
> > 
> > Sounds good. Let's wait a bit and then write it down?
> 
> I agree with this proposal.

Following a brief discussion at the team sprint in Hamburg, I've now
written this down in our policy manual:

https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/policy.html#Dual-lived_Modules

Dominic.