On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:58:58PM +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > On 10/16, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:11:41PM +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > > the libzeromq-perl package has just been deprecated upstream. An > > > alternative > > > exists but it has not yet been packaged for Debian (it will at some > > > point). > > > > Is there an imperative for removing this package before its natural > > successor is packaged? I don't know the package in question but this > > sounds like a potential unnecessary disruption to any users of the > > package. > > I just don't see the point of including an upstream-abandoned package in a > stable release when we already know it will be removed in the next one. Also, > if > the removal is post-poned it may even get harder to do in future (e.g. if > other > packages start depending on it). > > Considering that it is a relatively new package (~1.5 years, never been in a > stable release) and the low popcon I don't think its removal will cause much > trouble. The more it stays, the more users will use it. > > But this is just my thought, I'm very well open to letting it stay.
Ah, if it's a question of removing it from testing that's a different matter. Maybe let it stay in unstable for time being in case anyone is relying on it indirectly? Cheers, Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
