On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:20:39PM -0400, Ove Kaaven wrote: > søn, 22,.05.2005 kl. 00.10 -0700, skrev Steve Langasek: > > Having four versions of gmime in a stable release means a four-fold increase > > in the security team's workload if a security bug is found. (This is true > > even if the bug only applies to one version, because the security team still > > has to confirm whether the bug is present in each version.) > Well, I already said the first one could be removed, so that leaves > three to consider. To clarify the position: > gmime: I can't imagine anyone using it > gmime1: usage unknown, do people still use glib1.2 much? > gmime2: stable branch of gmime > gmime2.1: unstable branch of gmime > So I'm not really opposed to removing gmime1, I just thought it was > possible that someone would use it in favor of gmime2 because they > haven't switched to glib2.0 yet. I don't personally care, though, after > all I RFA-ed gmime once, but only got someone to put their name on > gmime2 (so now Guus has it), not the older stuff... so if you drop my > two versions, that just means less burden for me. As for the other two, > Guus would know more... Ok, thanks; I'll push gmime and gmime1 out of testing then. AFAIK, the only projects still using glib1.2 are either very large projects, or very stagnant projects that have not yet converted; the former are probably things in the archive (like gnucash), none of which seem to use gmime, and the latter don't seem like a very good reason to keep a library around. :) If gmime2 represents a stable branch of the software that's still needed, then that's fine. Still, as noted there are no packages in sarge using gmime2 -- only gmime2.1... Ove, gmime and gmime1 should probably also be removed from unstable, IMHO. If you agree, do you want to file a request for removal against ftp.debian.org? Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature