>Jeroen van Wolffelaar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Hrmz, and what about xerces21, currently still in unstable and testing?
> There are two packages (gdal and qgis) that depend upon xerces21.
> Bugs have been filed against both (301710/301650 and 301709), and both
> maintainers have already responded. . . .
I haven't seen any recent activity on this from the maintainers
(though the qgis maintainer can't do anything until the gdal
maintainer does). My inclination is to execute the following plan:
* File a removal request for xerces21 noting that I am not the
maintainer of xerces21 but am the maintainer of the newer versions;
X-Debbugs-CC: email@example.com (maintainer of xerces21)
* Ivo (xerces21 maintainer) gets the removal request, and replies to
it giving his blessing. (Alternatively, Ivo, who is copied on this
message, can beat me to the punch and file the removal request for
xerces21, cc'ing me so I know, or can speak up and say he that he
objects to removal of xerces21 for some reason.)
* Once this happens, we upgrade the three above mentioned bugs to RC
(since they will FTBFS), and state intention to NMU if no response
in a given period of time. I'm copying maintainers for gdal and
qgis, so they can respond too before I do this, maybe making the
whole plan irrelevant.
Is this too aggressive? The bugs requesting upgrade of the other
packages are two weeks old now, so it seems like this may be a
reasonable approach at this time if we want to remove xerces21 but not
gdal and qgis.
Jay Berkenbilt <firstname.lastname@example.org>