Re: Update on GNOME 1 cleanup status
tim hall wrote:
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 04:57, Nathanael Nerode was like:
> ? - pydict
> ? ? - Maintainer foka@debian.org
> ? ? - Maintainer probably MIA, last upload in 2002
> ? ? - unchanged since stable
> ? ? -- Recommendation: remove from unstable
> * gnome-print
> ? - terraform
> ? ? -- Maintainer kaol@iki.fi
>Is it possible to clarify or re-iterate occasionally the purpose of this
>mission for some of us less savvy lurkers? Are you querying these packages
>because they are known to be broken or just that they will become broken once
>the old GNOME libraries are cleaned up?
Just because they'll become broken if the old GNOME libraries are cleaned up....
... well, and because the old GNOME libraries are orphaned and unmaintained, and
if they break, we probably won't fix them. And they have lots of irritating
bugs and are a pretty ripe target for cleaning up. Among other things, they
spread 'recursive dependency disease' and have been the prime culprit in a number
of problematic transitions.
If it weren't for these packages, the old GNOME libraries would have
been removed already. They're really only there as a courtesy to the
maintainers and users of these packages. If I thought there was a high likelihood
that the old GNOME libraries would find a ready adopter and maintainer, I
wouldn't be doing this.
The package list actually exists for three purposes: to spot packages which might
deserve to be removed, to spot packages which should be upgraded to GNOME 2, and
to spot maintainers who might be willing to pick up the GNOME 1 libraries, since
the GNOME 1 libraries are now in Debian primarily for their benefit.
>I don't wish to interfere with a worthwhile cleanup process, I confess to
>being a terrible hoarder myself and I'd just like some reassurance that
>you're not proposing to throw out any babies with the bathwater. It's not
>like I actually use any of these applications either.
Each package needs to be examined individually to identify which of the three
categories above it is in.
Reply to: