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

Bug#646870: #646870 : Let's drop gs-common entirely

retitle 646870 gs-common is useless as is; should be removed.

Hi Jonas,
(CC to Steve for information)

Let's summarize this bugreport: Jakub reports that gs-common is useless `as is` as it doesn't depend on anything. So gs-common doesn't serve its purpose of migrating to ghostscript. ghostscript on its side "Provides: gs-common".

Steve's proposal [0], on the collab-maint git repository of ghostscript [1], is to drop both the gs-common package and ghostscript's "Provides: gs-common", which is, I believe, a better solution than keeping it forever around.

[0] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/ghostscript.git;a=commitdiff;h=1ba79998
[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/ghostscript.git

So, before doing that, we should take a closer look at the impact on the archive. To this effect, I reported several bugs, all usertagged:


(As far as I can see, all those are also marked "blockers" of this bug.)

In summary:

* gs-common has 1 reverse Build-Depends in contrib (none in non-free):
  - ifeffit (#649702)
* gs-common has 13 reverse Build-Depends in main:
  - fpc (#649703)
  - geda-gaf (#649704)
  - texpower (#649705)
  - dieharder (#649706)
  - autoclass (#629809)
  - magnus (#649708)
  - bacula-doc (#649709)
  - ivritex  (#618176)
  - dejagnu  (#649710)
  - latex-mk  (#649699)
  - ball  (#649711)
  - wordnet (#649712)
  - flite (#649713)
* gs-common has 2 reverse Suggests:
  - latexmk (#649700)
  - latex-mk (#649699)
* gs-common has 2 reverse Recommends:
  - python-epydoc (#649697)
  - xcfa (#649698)
* gs-common has 1 reverse Depends:
  - latex-make (#649696)

I propose to upload ghostcript with Steve's proposed changes as soon as possible, then rise the severity of the {Build-,}Depends to serious, those of {Recommends,Suggests} to important. (Then one week after, we can safely NMU those and be done with that issue for Wheezy...)

Opinions ? Jonas: are you okay with the proposed changes and are you willing to upload "soon" ?



Reply to: