ubit (was: Xorg 6.9)
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Kevin B McCarty <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU> writes:
>> On the same note, here is a list of source packages containing one or
>> more binary packages that Depend: xlibs-dev. I've already removed
>> packages from the list that give it as an alternative (e.g. Depends:
>> libx11-dev | xlibs-dev).
>> Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>
>> ubit
> I can get this one today.
Okay, this is an odd one.
It looks like the last upload of ubit didn't handle the C++ transition
properly and ended up with an empty library package (the *.install file in
debian wasn't renamed). This has been in the archive since August 28th
and no one noticed.
That, plus the fact that the ubit in Debian is two years older and a major
revision behind upstream and a popcon of three votes, would seem to argue
that ubit isn't much used in Debian and maybe we should just remove it
completely. On the other hand, it released with the last two stable
versions of Debian.
I have a package that fixes the build issues and the X dependencies, but
there's an additional Ubuntu patch that also puts this package through the
mt_alloc transition. I *assume* from this that the package was affected,
but I can't confirm this. The package currently in Debian is empty, of
course, but pulling the package from stable and running objdump -T on it,
I see no sign of *mt_alloc* symbols.
What's the best approach to take here? I can upload a fixed libubit1c2,
which presumably won't have any mt_alloc problems given that it would be
built against the current unstable. I can do the package renaming to
libubit1c2a to match Ubuntu, even though this doesn't seem particularly
needed for Debian. Or I can just not upload anything and ask ftp-master
to remove the package entirely, given that no one's noticed serious
breakage for four months, the package has been orphaned since March, and
according to popcon very few people are using the package.
Advice?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: