On 02/16/2011 06:02 PM, Julien Valroff wrote: > Hi, > > Le mardi 15 févr. 2011 à 21:51:16 (+0000), Debian FTP Masters a écrit : >> We believe that the bug you reported is now fixed; the following >> package(s) have been removed from unstable: >> >> fast-user-switch-applet | 2.24.0-4 | source, hurd-i386 >> fast-user-switch-applet | 2.24.0-6 | source, hppa >> fast-user-switch-applet | 2.24.0-7 | source, alpha, amd64, armel, hppa, >> i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc >> >> ------------------- Reason ------------------- >> ROM; Obsolete; replaced by gdm3 >> ---------------------------------------------- > > Though I have nothing against this removal, and though I agree this package > should have been maintained by the GNOME team (I am sure Josselin thought it > was the case): why was this request approved without any prior > agreement from the maintainer of the package (me in that case)? > > Isn't there any check made before removing a package from the archive to > ensure the request was actually my by the maintainer (in case of a RoM)?
No idea about the above part... > I see also that current users of gdm (still in the archive) now miss a > feature, and as far as I know, they are currently not forced to switch to > gdm3. gdm is in the process of being removed where only 2 packages depending/build-depending on gdm are still under consideration... So everyone in unstable will soon not be able to upgrade or install gdm anymore. Is there any reason why users are not forced to gdm3 when upgrading from gdm (with a debconf note warning about possible issues) instead of having all users being forced to find out by themselves that they are supposed to install gdm3 now? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
