Re: Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> 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 ?
[Resending, I typoed the debian-release mailing list initially]
IMO we should ignore this for Squeeze and proceed with removing opie after
the Squeeze release.
Cheers,
Moritz
Reply to: