Bug#893649: xvt: should this package be removed?

2018-06-28 Thread Boyuan Yang
X-Debbugs-CC: s...@debian.org

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:36:31 +0100 Adam Borowski  wrote:
> Package: xvt
> Version: 2.1-20.3
> Severity: serious
> Justification: QA query
> 
> Hi!
> I believe that xvt is no longer suitable for inclusion in Debian, and thus
> propose its removal.  Not only has it been dead upstream since times
> immemorial but also it lacks features so basic it's mind-boggling.
> 
> For example, I believed that Windows 3.11's TELNET.EXE was the last terminal
> in existence that lacked color support.  Turns out, here we ship xvt, in
> 2018.  Or, no UTF-8 support is probably worth a RC bug on its own.
> 
> More than two decades ago, xvt was superseded by its fork rxvt, which in
> turn spawned a multitude of forks on its own.  I for one remember using a
> bunch of them on IRIX, when the world was still young...  Those forks have
> then died out around the beginning of this millenium, of them only
> rxvt-unicode is still struggling along.
> 
> As this package is still nominally maintained (well, your last upload was in
> 2006...), I can't file a RoQA immediately.  Thus, please tell me whether it
> should be removed.  If not, please close this bug, otherwise I'll ask for
> removal before Buster freeze.

Hi Sam,

I noticed that the maintainer field still points to your old email (non 
@debian.org one). I'm forwarding this mail to your @debian.org mail address 
again to eusure mail delivery.

I personally second the idea of requesting package removal for xvt. If you 
agree with that, it would be better for us to do it earlier than later.

--
Regards,
Boyuan Yang

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


Bug#893649: xvt: should this package be removed?

2018-03-20 Thread Adam Borowski
Package: xvt
Version: 2.1-20.3
Severity: serious
Justification: QA query

Hi!
I believe that xvt is no longer suitable for inclusion in Debian, and thus
propose its removal.  Not only has it been dead upstream since times
immemorial but also it lacks features so basic it's mind-boggling.

For example, I believed that Windows 3.11's TELNET.EXE was the last terminal
in existence that lacked color support.  Turns out, here we ship xvt, in
2018.  Or, no UTF-8 support is probably worth a RC bug on its own.

More than two decades ago, xvt was superseded by its fork rxvt, which in
turn spawned a multitude of forks on its own.  I for one remember using a
bunch of them on IRIX, when the world was still young...  Those forks have
then died out around the beginning of this millenium, of them only
rxvt-unicode is still struggling along.

As this package is still nominally maintained (well, your last upload was in
2006...), I can't file a RoQA immediately.  Thus, please tell me whether it
should be removed.  If not, please close this bug, otherwise I'll ask for
removal before Buster freeze.


Meow!
-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), 
(150, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.16.0-rc6-debug-00033-g80c3264499c7 (SMP w/6 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C.UTF-8 
(charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)

Versions of packages xvt depends on:
ii  libc6 2.27-2
ii  libx11-6  2:1.6.5-1

xvt recommends no packages.

Versions of packages xvt suggests:
pn  menu  

-- no debconf information