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

Re: Proposing removal of pump: anyone wants it?



Paul Wise wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Paleino <dapal@debian.org> wrote:
> 
>> The first issue is: pump has no upstream. debian/copyright shows the
>> source was taken from Fedora Core [1] (reports 404) -- now that it
>> changed name, the new url seems to be [2], 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:
> 
> http://git.fedoraproject.org/git/pump.git

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.


Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.   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


Reply to: