Hi all, On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 08:50:05PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 02:30:02PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > Given Dominique's reply on #767411, from my POV I think the best > > > solution would be to remove torque completely for jessie (i.e. first > > > drop support from openmpi to be able to remove the package and > > > remaining reverse dependencies). > > > > 4 wheezy DSAs doesn't necessarily sound that horrible, so I don't > > think we're clearly at the point where torque should be considered > > unsupportable. Maybe the patch backports were an incredible amount of > > work? > > Well, but the 2.4 branch is already no longer unsupported upstream > and we shouldn't knowingly introduce it into a release which will be > supported for five more years. > > > The package does clearly need to be orphaned, so someone can step up > > post-jessie to get the package in sync with upstream. > > As written by Dominique that's no possible for license reasons.
In meanwhile openmpi has droppend the torque dependency. Should we have src:torque and src:pbs-drmaa be removed from the archive? Regards, Salvatore
