Easy packages to kick out
These all have RC bugs and are 'leaf' packages in etch.
(As such, they will all get back in easily if the RC bugs are fixed.)
Personally, I'd kick the lot out of testing, but you can pick and choose.
Rationale.
* It would make a substantial and easy dent in the RC bug count for etch,
increasing the average package quality for etch immediately.
* There seems to be little incentive for packagers to fix preexisting RC bugs
if their packages have already reached testing, due to the general policy
that preexisitng RC bugs are ignored for testing propagation. While this
is certainly a necessary policy for packages with substantial reverse
dependencies, it doesn't seem particularly appropriate for leaf packages.
* It would reduce the RC bug list for etch to a list of bugs which "really
need to be fixed" as opposed to bugs which can be fixed by kicking packages
out. Currently *most* bugs on the RC bug listcould be fixed by kicking
packages out.
This list so far only covers packages beginning with "A": amounting to
nine source packages.
# 361139 (security)
remove acidbase/1.2.2-1
# 359065, 364550
remove ept/1.90.1
# 363030
remove aegis/4.21-2
# 266407, 321771: this does have a reverse recommends from sgml2x
remove alcovebook-sgml/0.1.2-7
# 358342
# I believe the plan was to drop 2.4 kernels for etch, and these are
# strictly 2.4 modules (and for i386 only, too; and 2.6 works very consistently
# in i386 at least.) Perhaps these should be removed from unstable too?
remove alsa-modules-i386/1.0.10+1
# 364651, 366042 in unstable
# reverse recommends from kde-extras, reverse suggests from ion3-scripts
remove amarok/1.3.8-1
# 360713 -- patch unapplied by maintainer, should be NMUed probably
remove and/1.2.1-2
# 365199
remove araneida/0.90.1-3
# 327564
remove aria/1.0.0-13
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: