Bug#233422: marked as done (Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package netdude-dev)
Your message dated Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:10:45 GMT
with message-id <200901182010.n0IKAjj7010395@kmos.homeip.net>
and subject line netdude has been removed from Debian, closing #233422
has caused the Debian Bug report #233422,
regarding Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package netdude-dev
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact email@example.com
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact firstname.lastname@example.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Inefficient packaging of arch independent data in package netdude-dev
- From: Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:42:13 +0000
- Message-id: <E1AtHfB-00052Hemail@example.com>
This is a semi-automated bug report based on scanning the contents of
binary .deb files in the unstable Debian archive.
The netdude-dev packages seem to contain a very large amount of
architecture-independent data in architecture-dependent packages,
specifically data installed under /usr/share. This is wasteful of
mirror space and bandwidth, as we then end up with multiple copies of
this data, one for each architecture. Initial estimates suggest that
several gigabytes of Debian archive space may currently be wasted
because of packages like this.
The way to fix this depends on the layout of your package:
* Some packages need to have a -common or -doc package split out to
contain this common data, and the existing packages that need this
data should then be altered to depend on the new -common or -doc
* This package may already be such a -common or -doc package, in
which case it probably should already be marked as Architecture:
all in your debian/control file rather than Architecture: any .
* Maybe the files under /usr/share do not belong there - several
packages seem to contain data in /usr/share that is definitely
architecture-dependent. In this case, please move the files into
the right place.
Policy is quite clear on this point:
The usage of these packages is currently:
debsize pkgsize /usr/share % filename
1435612 4592 4392 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_alpha.deb
1508342 4832 4632 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_arm.deb
1594472 5420 5220 96 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_hppa.deb
1498266 4812 4612 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_i386.deb
1522076 3832 3632 94 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_ia64.deb
1507844 4808 4608 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_m68k.deb
1434100 4108 3908 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_mips.deb
1427944 4120 3920 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_mipsel.deb
1524520 4868 4668 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_powerpc.deb
1515216 4840 4640 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_s390.deb
1525654 4876 4676 95 pool/main/n/netdude/netdude-dev_0.3.3-1_sparc.deb
Please split this package appropriately. If you believe your package
is already split reasonably, then sorry for bothering you. If you wish
to discuss this further, please feel free to reply to this bug. If you
agree that there's a problem here but need help to fix it: again, feel
free to ask...
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: netdude has been removed from Debian, closing #233422
- From: Marco Rodrigues <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:10:45 GMT
- Message-id: <200901182010.n0IKAjj7010395@kmos.homeip.net>
The netdude package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and
experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened
For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/511962 . That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements.
Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
--- End Message ---