On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 08:53:42AM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 21 November 2022 at 20:13, Nilesh Patra wrote: > | On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 02:43:28PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > | > Am Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 03:35:38PM +0200 schrieb Antti Honkela: > | > > We do not have resources to maintain BitSeq anymore and have requested its removal from Bioconductor. I am not sure why it is still there as it is broken. > | > > | > Thanks a lot for the super fast and helpful response. > | > > | > To the readers of Debian R pkg team: Seems we should remove > | > r-bioc-bitseq from Debian, right? > | > | If it is going away from bioconductor itself, then I see no reason to keep it in Debian either. > > That is a valid rule, but it is still in 3.16 so ... maybe we want to for > someone in BioConductor to adopt it? Difficult call either way, it is not > building from them either per the status summary at the top of > > https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/html/BitSeq.html In that case, it'd be good to file an RC bug to keep this out of testing, at least and not block the transition. If it sees activity, we should be good. If not (for many months), we can RM it. -- Best, Nilesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature