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? Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Tori Amos: Icicle
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature