Thanks for your thoughts on this, James, but let me reply on this clearly:
On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
If the functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen or
elsewhere then maybe composite can be removed on the basis that it's
obsolete and has little upstream activity, but since I don't use these
packages I don't really have an opinion on this.
I think you misunderstood sth here. It is rather upside down. Not the
functionality provided by composite is now in hydrogen, IT IS Hydrogen
and ever was, and Composite came later to just made a fork/clone of the
code of Hydrogen by promising to make something else out of it what
never happend.
On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
> While you have some good points, I don't think any of them are
> sufficient reason to force the removal
Another point where I thought it should be upside down. Shouldn't there
be rather reasons to add a package, not reasons to remove one which is
maybe a duplicate? What were the reasons of this package to be added?
On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
> Beyond that there are no other hard rules other than the package
> should have a maintainer willing to support it.
Wow. o.O ... This is a really hard statement. Are you aware of this?
Does Debian security team agree with that?
On 04/08/2017 01:35 PM, James Cowgill wrote:
> There are a lot of old packages in Debian which are
> not going away any time soon.
This makes absolutely sense to me, but not with duplicated or mistakenly
added packages without warnings. Debian has removed ffmpeg and replaced
it by libav in the days when libav was forking and later has corrected
this issue very quick in the next release cycle and brought back ffmpeg.
So I think it is not about "every thing keeps being in when it is in" ...
