[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#511582: Plan of action ?

Forwarding to debian-release as I b0rkled the address before.

Sorry… 

Cheers, OdyX
-- 
Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM).
CH-1020 Renens
didier@raboud.com
--- Begin Message --- 
Le Thursday 4 November 2010 23:40:39 Moritz Muehlenhoff, vous avez écrit :
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:04PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb  1, 2010 at 00:51:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > > In particular, i'm concerned that this package has a setuid binary, has
> > > had only NMUs since 2004, hasn't been reviewed for recent Standards or
> > > debhelper versions, and http://bugs.debian.org/511582#30 suggests that
> > > the maintainer seems to think that we should move away from the
> > > codebase.
> > > 
> > > I'm wondering if we should remove the package from the archive entirely
> > > as a result of this review.  I'm not comfortable NMUing a package with
> > > these outstanding concerns.
> > 
> > In order to remove the package, we'd have to remove its reverse
> > dependencies, or change them to not need libopie-dev.  According to dak,
> > that would be cyrus-sasl2, inetutils and libpam-opie.  Is opie an
> > optional dependency for those packages (I'm guessing not for
> > libpam-opie, no idea for the others)?
> 
> cyrus-sasl2 would need to drop the libsasl2-modules-otp binary package.

Hi all, 
To: Release-Team to get your advice.

Assuming that the plan is still to get opie removed from Squeeze (at least), 
let's try to draw a plan of action towards it.

[] A removal bug should be filed against release.d.o (which could serve to keep 
track of the various things needed for it)

[] Reverse Dependencies need to get removed at the same time. This concerns one 
package: libpam-opie. Removal bug against release.d.o too then.

[] Reverse Build-Dependencies need to get fixed or removed, this concerns two 
other packages: cyrus-sasl2 and cyrus-sasl2-heimdal. This would mean "serious" 
(above RC) bugs against them.

This would basically mean two removals from squeeze and two serious bugs. May I 
proceed ?

Cheers, 

OdyX

-- 
Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM).
CH-1020 Renens
didier@raboud.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: