Re: future of root-system: removal?
I figure CERN should appoint one of its staff to become a Debian
developer to maintain the package.
In the meantime, might be simpler to drop it as you suggest. Our
packages need people to love them.
Drew
On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 22:33 +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Hi science people!
>
> So, not root-system got entangled it Yet Another Transition (actually
> this is only the remaining decrufting from sid): openssl.
>
> The old binaries still there depend on libssl1.0.0, whilst now there
> is
> libssl1.0.2, removing SSLv3 methods.
> I also see this as a kind of important (as security-related) change
> that
> really needs to be done.
>
> I saw nobody willing to step trying to tackle and tame that huge
> beast,
> I tried earlier in the year, but ran out of steam without managing to
> do
> anything useful.
>
> So, IMHO, we should just remove it, until somebody else doing another
> physic PhD comes wanting to put it back for another bunch of years,
> maybe improving the scripts around and making the maintenance easy
> also
> to one-time shooters.
>
> There are only 2 rdeps, fastjet and rivet, and they do it only for 2
> binary packages, which could be just dropped¹.
>
> I'm CCing the person listed in the Uploaders field of all those 3
> packages, which seems to be gone.
>
> If once again I'm not hearing any complaint in 2 weeks or so I'll
> team
> upload rivet and fastjet to drop the binaries depending on root, and
> then RM root itself.
>
> Thanks for listening and reading till now :)
>
>
>
> ¹ On a related note, also fastject and river and their rdeps herwig++
> and thepeg and their rdep pythia8 and its rdep hepmc could just go:
> there is currently nobody caring, some have NMUs, and the maintainer
> is
> seemingly gone. They are not bothering me though, so I'm not going
> to
> to ask for RM of them anytime soon.
>
Reply to: