On Monday 10. December 2012 23.42, Remy CLOUARD wrote: > this library is removed because it’s eol’d > upstream, but also because no other package use it. It seems to me that > it can safely be removed from the mirrors, but removing it from boxes > via task-obsolete seems a bit overkill to me
Perhaps we need to discuss a policy regarding abandoned packages, as it's clearly not obvious to everyone what it is or should be. Like, when is an abandoned upstream package obsolete, and subject for inclusion in task-obsolete. One example of an old package which last release was in 2003, still works flawlessly and builds just fine, is apg. So the fact that seems to be abandoned upstream clearly is in and of itself not enouch to obsolete it. So there needs to be a criteria for defining something as obsolete and a candidate for task-obsolete. Another thing is that some pakcages listed in task-obsolete clearly doesn't belong there. I took a quick glance on the spec file for task-obsolete. and I notice that some of the packages listed should be listed in the packages that replace them. One example is «policykit» where the comment says is replaced by «polkit». I've read in other mails on this list that in situations where a package is replaced by a package with another name, the new package should obsolete the old one. -- Johnny A. Solbu PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
