Re: remove libphp-phplot and acidlab from lenny
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:44:31 +0200]:
Hi,
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 05:04:04PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > as documented by #435176 and then #495083 libphp-phplot has been
> > unusable since May 2007. In fact, it has been empty(!) since May 2008,
> > i.e. for over four months, with no-one actually noticing until a bug
> > report was filed in mid-August (unanswered for a month) - welcome to the
> > wonderful world of diligent maintainer testing before upload.
> > It has one reverse dependency, acidlab. No-one seems to have cared about
> > acidlab being uninstallable or with unusable dependency for a year either.
> > acidlab had previously been removed from unstable for neglect and
> > libphp-phplot also had managed to raise QA concerns (#475757) which the
> > maintainer violently. IMO it might be time to think about removal from
> > unstable as well, but I'll leave that up to the QA people.
> Acidlab does not actually require libphp-phplot. Many users can use acidlab
> without the plotting functionality.
However, acidlab Depends: on libphp-phplot, so libphp-phplot cannot be
removed. So, since I think removing libphp-phplot would be good to do,
maybe we could get an upload of acidlab dropping the dependency? (Or
lowering to Suggests for documentation purposes, whatever.) But see
below.
> On the other hand Acidlab has ben superseded by acidbase. Which is an
> enhanced fork that is being actively maintained (acidlab has not seen an
> upstream update for years and will probably not see one anymore).
> Acidlab use [1] has been diminishing in time whileas acidbase [2] has
> increased so it is probably time to remove one in favour of the other one.
> I cannot prepare a transition plan from one to the other (which should be more
> than just an empty package with a Depends: acidbase). If somebody is willing
> to help the existing Acidlab users with a transition package for lenny I would really
> appreciate it.
> If QA thinks that the best route is to RM this package that is fine too.
I don't know what QA thinks, but my opinion from a release point of view
is that is sounds appropriate to remove it unless you (as the maintainer)
have a more qualified opinion/reasons that it should stay for Lenny. Is
that the case?
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Pastora - Una mañana
Reply to: