Follow-up to "52 packages it would be nice to remove"
Dear QA list,
This is a follow-up to this email:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/05/msg00026.html
in which I listed 51 packages that have old RC bugs and very low popcon
numbers (less than or about equal to 10 installations reported). [The
52nd package is interchange-doc, which it makes no sense to keep in the
archive if interchange is removed.]
First, the good news. The following five source packages no longer have
RC bugs:
camas (fixed by NMU)
hoichess (fixed by NMU)
libcwd (fixed by NMU)
libooc-xml (#355142 downgraded)
spfmilter (fixed by NMU)
Unfortunately the improvements aren't a result of the actual maintainers
of these packages suddenly starting to care about them :-/
The following four packages have already had a removal request filed so
we don't need to do anything more about them:
kernel-patch-adamantix (#364684)
mozilla-firefox-locale-tr (#359202)
rsbac-admin (#364685)
xsim (#364619)
Three packages of which I am aware have recently had the maintainers
comment that they intend to make uploads Real Soon Now (TM), so there is
probably no point in filing removal requests for them since fixed
packages will apparently be available at some point.
dbmail: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=284770;msg=29
gforge: http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/05/msg00040.html
postgis: There is an ongoing discussion about the package on the
pkg-grass-general mailing list on Alioth.
That leaves the following 39 source packages for which I have contacted
maintainers individually. (I did not send a separate email about
interchange-doc.) I'll report back on the results in about 2 weeks.
asterisk-chan-misdn: RC bug 358338
barrendero: RC bug 279162
bayonne: RC bugs 321833 334107 342763 356590
chdrv: RC bugs 126471 319969
divine: RC bug 272393
forrest: RC bugs 306288 337913
gerstensaft: RC bug 328538
ghc-cvs: RC bugs 305178 338780 346667
harbour: RC bug 276962
hat: RC bugs 310009 334156
interchange: RC bug 340576
isakmpd: RC bugs 320393 325849 334624
kernel-patch-nfs-swap: RC bug 264276
kernel-patch-time: RC bug 310583
libooc-vo: RC bug 355140
libsem: RC bug 311258
libvpopmail-perl: RC bug 309373
manderlbot: RC bugs 337419 340040
mozilla-locale-lt: RC bug 336631
mozilla-locale-zh-cn: RC bug 277170
mozilla-locale-zh-tw: RC bug 277169
mozilla-thunderbird-locale-nb: RC bug 338452
nbsmtp: RC bug 358246
openmash: RC bug 364271
openoffice.org2-soikko: RC bugs 360470 360472
parted-swig: RC bug 297853
php4-kadm5: RC bug 336312
php4-vpopmail: RC bug 309558
pike-crypto-build: RC bug 354011
poldi: RC bug 354482
python-smbpasswd: RC bug 337424
rivet: RC bugs 325206 355656
spip: RC bug 253242
ultrapossum-slapd: RC bugs 304092 308088
xbox-cromwell: RC bug 318567
xnap: RC bug 302554
xnap-snapshot: RC bug 302553
yate: RC bugs 358131 362709
zmailer: RC bugs 253937 272875 289472 339316
In case someone is interested, I used the template below to contact
maintainers, where PKG is replaced by the source package name and BUGS
is replaced by a list of URLs to the RC bugs in question.
Subject: Should PKG be removed from the Debian archive?
Dear PKG maintainer,
Are you still interested in taking care of the PKG package?
I noticed that (as I reported at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2006/05/msg00026.html )
this package has at least one release-critical bug that is more than a
month old, and in addition it generates no binary package for which
popcon lists more than about 10 installations. (This is the RC bug list:
BUGS
and for the popcon report, see here:
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=PKG )
If you no longer have the time or interest to maintain PKG,
and no one else can be found to maintain it, perhaps it should be
removed from the Debian archive since it is critically buggy and used by
very few people. I would be happy to file a bug against the
pseudopackage ftp.debian.org on your behalf to request the removal of
PKG. Please let me know whether or not I may do so.
After a suitable period of time to collect replies (two weeks), I plan
to write to the debian-qa mailing list. I'll give a summary of the
source packages listed at the first URL above for which I received
affirmative, negative, and no responses.
best regards,
--
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544
Reply to: