Hi Ted,
Am Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 09:57:08AM -0500 schrieb Theodore Tso:
> > Finally users need to decide, but do you see some sensible migration
> > path? Or is just removing the package and let users find out themselves
> > the only feasible option. I actualy have no idea but if the latter
> > is the case it might be better to remove it rather sooner than later
> > to have a large time span until the next release.
>
> Given how many packages will likely have to die as a result of the
> GTK2 deprecation (sniff; pour one out for gkrellm, pidgin, ...) there
> should probably a set of standardized approachs that maintainers could
> select from.
>
> I wonder if one approach might be to upload a replacement package
> which has a NEWS file explaining that xzgv has been removed to the
> GTK2 deprecation, and suggesting some possible alternatives that users
> could choose from. I do agree it needs to be up to the users, since
> there really isn't a single drop-in replacement. But it seems it
> would be nice if there was a way to give users some pointers to
> alternatives.
What do you think about the following idea: I could import xzgv
packaging into Debian Phototools team on Salsa (to provide an example on
a public place). There we provide a metapackage versioned
0.9.2+transition-1
(or something like this) with no real code but just Dependencies
Recommends: nsxiv | geeqie | eog
This would ensure that xzgv will not be left alone with something
comparable.
I noticed that xzgv source package is featuring debian/gbp.conf. So I
assume you are using some Git repository somewhere. If you agree with
the plan in principle it would be nice to keep the packaging history on
that public place as well. I'd volunteer to import your repository
implement that plan and let you review the result.
The metapackage should close both open bugs BTW.
What do you think?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
