Bug#781518: Please remove very outdated MakeHuman package
2015-04-01 14:23 Joel Palmius:
This is a perfectly acceptable solution. The main thing we wanted to
achieve here was to get the four year old alpha 6 out of circulation,
and that is the goal that has priority over other concerns. So yes, we
would like to have the package removed from Unstable too.
I also saw the answer from the maintainer (and having written a PhD
myself, I can sympathize).
If it is acceptable, we can at a later point contribute a new build
written for the current MakeHuman branch (although, we would most
likely wait with that until the next stable release which is upcoming
within the near future). We would then also be willing to discuss
maintaining the build in the future.
A question that have arisen in the project group is this though: Do we
cause any irreparable harm for the possible (re-)inclusion of a new
MakeHuman build at a later date by asking to have the current version
removed?
It is not a *big* issue, but as Muammar says, it's a bit of a waste of time for
several people involved (esp. FTP team, who would have to review again the
license and do some boring bureaucratic changes to accept it in the archive
again).
I can volunteer to upload a new version within a few days/weeks, if everybody is
happy with that, if the changes needed from the packaging side are not too many
and specially if there are no nasty/boring license issues to solve by this new
version :-)
Also, I can move it to use git collab-maint, so it's easier in the future for
other people to chime in.
Is everybody happy with this? Muammar?
The worries mainly concerned the recommendations for reintroducing
removed packages, but also the recommendations against introducing
packages depending on python 2.x (which is a hard dependency for
MakeHuman).
I don't know much about packaging Python applications in Debian, so I am not
sure about how much of a problem this is. If anybody knows, please comment.
Also, are there any plans from the Makehuman project to port it to Python 3 (or
2 and 3) in the near future?
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Reply to: