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

Bug#642371: RM: scim-bridge -- ROM; dead upstream, unmaintained, unfit for KDE4/QT4

retitle 642371 RM: scim-bridge -- RoQA; dead upstream, unmaintained, unfit for KDE4/QT4 
retitle 642560 RM: scim-bridge-el -- RoQA; removal of dependency, no response from maintainer 
reassign 642371 ftp.debian.org 
severity 642371 normal
reassign 642560 ftp.debian.org

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:25:41 +0800
Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> The question in subject line should be revisited now. I'm not sure
> about what's your opinions now, as there still isn't any activity to
> implement Osamu's proposal (and a QA upload underway).

There's no need to pursue this through another round of non-responses.

There have been no changes since :
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:20:19 +0000

> Unless someone intends to look after the existing software and maintain
> it within Debian then the answer will be yes - remove it. Either fix it
> or let it be removed due to inaction. Simple.
> Unmaintained software which is dead upstream and has not been ported to
> updated libraries in Debian is always a candidate for removal.
> Those who care about this software need to step up and do the work.
> That's all there is to it. It's not enough to just protest or complain -
> unless someone does the work, the package remains a candidate for
> removal. The RC bugs mentioned originally don't seem to be open any
> longer, so there is time for the work to be done.
> If the work isn't done, I'll reassign the removal bug myself.

So reassigning this bug to ftp.debian.org for removal of scim-bridge.

Nobody has stepped up to do the work in the previous month, so there
can be no complaints about the removal.

Also seeking the removal of scim-bridge-el as there has been no
response to #642560 re the removal of scim-bridge since Sat, 24 Sep

If someone wants eventually does the work, the package can be
re-introduced but it's been 5 months since the original bug report, so
that seems unlikely.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgp0G8M056BeL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: