Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?

To: debian-project@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
From: Judit Foglszinger <urbec@riseup.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:44:27 +0600
Message-id: <[🔎] 2169603.xAWq891ecY@tomato>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Y3jtmIs52jJrIunf@einval.com>
References: <[🔎] Y3jtmIs52jJrIunf@einval.com>

Hi,

> This does raise the wider question: we're about to freeze for Bookworm.
> Removing leaf packages and packages with a small user count might be profitable
> at this point. Fortune-mod has some bugs at the moment preventing testing
> transition and has had several NMUs prior to the latest upload.

fortune-mod has no bugs that prevent testing migration,
it just needs a source-only upload.
Also the NMUs it had where 
1. the no changes source NMU from holger, that happened to a big number of packages
2. a recent NMU to remove the fortunes-off binary package

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
  - From: Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org>

References:
- Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
  - From: "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
Next by Date: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
Previous by thread: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
Next by thread: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread