On Sa, 2015-05-16 at 09:31 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > On 13/05/15 13:09, Sebastian Dröge wrote: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: email@example.com > > Usertags: transition > > > > Hi, > > > > see rationale in this mailing list thread: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/05/msg00335.html > > > > It was suggested in that thread to also set up a transition tracker for > > this. The main package involved here would be libgstreamer0.10-0, which > > should go away and has libgstreamer1.0-0 as replacement already. > > > > The qt-gstreamer transition (#760003) already clears part of the > > remaining GStreamer 0.10 dependencies. Additionally there are further > > GStreamer 0.10 bindings: > > > > python-gst0.10 is replaced by python-gst1.0 / python3-gst1.0 > > > > libgstreamer0.9-cil is replaced by libgstreamer1.0-cil > > (which is not yet uploaded, upstream release exists) > > > > libgstreamermm-0.10-2 would be replaced by libgstreamermm-1.0-XXX > > (which is also not yet uploaded, upstream release exists) > > > > libgstreamer-perl, haskell-gstreamer > > I'm not aware what the plans there are, the latter also has nothing > > depending on it. > > I don't want to have hundreds of RC bugs just for this. You can file bugs at say > important severity though, and when the list of rdeps gets down significantly, > they can be raised to serious. Also sending a dd-list to debian-devel can be useful. I'll send a follow-up with dd-list to debian-devel later. As nobody did any porting of any of these packages over the last 3 years, I doubt that any porting will happen just because I file non-RC bugs for them :) But if you prefer that, I'm going to just file bugs with important severity. Not sure if I should also orphan the GStreamer 0.10 packages on the next uploads, might be the most sensible thing to do though.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part