Re: Package removal proposals
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 05:30:21PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> >> remove dict-jargon/4.4.4-4
>> >> FTBFS (#229435). Eventually it will be fixed and it can go in again,
>> >> of course.
>> >
>> > Um. It's Architecture: all.
>> So what? It still has source and object files, since it generates stuff
>> from XML.
>
> It's consistent among architectures, and works fine as it is. Not building
> from source in a newer environment would be troublesome if we had to
> update it later, but even then it can still be solved with patch, and it's
> unlikely that any update would be urgent (at least I don't see how a
> security bug in a gzipped text file is probable).
>
>> > Surely not all problems need to be resolved with an axe?
>> As I said, "Eventually it will be fixed and it can go in again, of
>> course."
>>
>> Do you want to release with packages which don't build from source?
>> That is the only question here. No prejudice against the package.
>
> No, that's not "the only question here".
OK; if the bug doesn't justify removing the package from testing -- in that
case the bug isn't release critical and should be downgraded or marked
'sarge-ignore'. Care to do the honors?
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: