Re: Orphaned packages that were not part of etch
Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Oh really? so we should just say "sorry, no more foo for you" to the
> almost 22k users who have imlib on their system?
We should be trying to move applications to the current version of imlib
so that we can retire the no-longer-maintained older version. It's a
similar problem to Gtk 1.x, it looks like. So yes, we should be trying to
remove this from the archive; we just haven't finished yet.
> also to the 31635 users of mdbtools,
Looks like someone is adopting this.
> the 3k users of metamail,
metamail needs to die. The code is horrible and the package needs to just
go away. The only reason why it hasn't yet is because there were lots of
other older packages that used it, and changing them to use something
better is slow work, particularly since the maintainers of some of those
other packages are not particularly active. But yes, I would love to see
metamail removed completely.
> 34660 of vbetool,
Recommended by various power management packages. If it's really useful
for that, it would be nice if one of the maintainers of the poewr
management packages would adopt it.
> 7620 of htdig (which is a strong dependency of khelpcenter), and so son.
Isn't ht://Dig basically dead? There have been no upstream releases since
2004. khelpcenter probably needs to move to another search engine.
> I've nothing against cleaning up the archive; but IMHO packages with no
> severe bugs, with active upstreams, and with a good number of users
> shouldn't be the target of a 'hard' (i.e. preventing it from being
> shipped in stable) cleanup.
The packages you're listing by and large don't meet that criteria.
> DFSG:
>> 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
Ah, Debian's version of Godwin's Law.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: