Re: Proposing removal of pump: anyone wants it?
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Paleino <email@example.com> wrote:
>> The first issue is: pump has no upstream. debian/copyright shows the
>> source was taken from Fedora Core  (reports 404) -- now that it
>> changed name, the new url seems to be , and there's no trace of pump
>> there. The last upstream release seems to be 0.8.24, uploaded to Debian
>> on Sat, 26 Nov 2005.
> Looks like this is the upstream git repo:
Nice, I didn't find it before.
>> What do you think about this?
> Sounds like it should be removed to me.
> [debian-qa probably would have been a better list for this post]
Yes, indeed. The mail was originally meant for debian-devel, it was a
genuine mistake :) (yet, debian-qa would've been more appropriate than
debian-devel itself -- and, knode doesn't let me set Followup-To/Reply-To,
could someone please do that?).
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> AFAIK it's quite popular in embedded context, at least I have been using
> it in that context for various customer projects and keeping it available
> just for this seems worthwhile (but I also used udhcpc in that context
> when I needed finer control of the resulting configuration).
Does pump have anything you can't do with udhcpc?
As also Paul pointed out, upstream development has stopped, so maintaining
it would be a burden for DebianQA -- or anyone stepping in for it.
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174