Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 05:16:46PM +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:20:53PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:23:04 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: IMO we should ignore this for Squeeze and proceed with removing opie after the Squeeze release. Sounds like a good plan. Here we are and I suggest we proceed, i.e. (1) drop the binary package libsasl2-modules-otp from cyrus-sasl2, (2) remove libpam-opie from unstable, (3) remove opie from unstable. Objections? None seen, bugs filed: #60, #61, #622246. Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundationwww.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:20:53PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:23:04 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: IMO we should ignore this for Squeeze and proceed with removing opie after the Squeeze release. Sounds like a good plan. Here we are and I suggest we proceed, i.e. (1) drop the binary package libsasl2-modules-otp from cyrus-sasl2, (2) remove libpam-opie from unstable, (3) remove opie from unstable. Objections? Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundationwww.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
tag 511582 squeeze-ignore kthxbye On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 22:23:04 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: IMO we should ignore this for Squeeze and proceed with removing opie after the Squeeze release. Sounds like a good plan. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le Thursday 4 November 2010 23:40:39 Moritz Muehlenhoff, vous avez écrit : On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:04PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 00:51:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: In particular, i'm concerned that this package has a setuid binary, has had only NMUs since 2004, hasn't been reviewed for recent Standards or debhelper versions, and http://bugs.debian.org/511582#30 suggests that the maintainer seems to think that we should move away from the codebase. I'm wondering if we should remove the package from the archive entirely as a result of this review. I'm not comfortable NMUing a package with these outstanding concerns. In order to remove the package, we'd have to remove its reverse dependencies, or change them to not need libopie-dev. According to dak, that would be cyrus-sasl2, inetutils and libpam-opie. Is opie an optional dependency for those packages (I'm guessing not for libpam-opie, no idea for the others)? cyrus-sasl2 would need to drop the libsasl2-modules-otp binary package. Hi all, To: Release-Team to get your advice. Assuming that the plan is still to get opie removed from Squeeze (at least), let's try to draw a plan of action towards it. [] A removal bug should be filed against release.d.o (which could serve to keep track of the various things needed for it) [] Reverse Dependencies need to get removed at the same time. This concerns one package: libpam-opie. Removal bug against release.d.o too then. [] Reverse Build-Dependencies need to get fixed or removed, this concerns two other packages: cyrus-sasl2 and cyrus-sasl2-heimdal. This would mean serious (above RC) bugs against them. This would basically mean two removals from squeeze and two serious bugs. May I proceed ? IMO we should ignore this for Squeeze and proceed with removing opie after the Squeeze release. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:39:21AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: Le Thursday 4 November 2010 23:40:39 Moritz Muehlenhoff, vous avez écrit : On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:04PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 00:51:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: In particular, i'm concerned that this package has a setuid binary, has had only NMUs since 2004, hasn't been reviewed for recent Standards or debhelper versions, and http://bugs.debian.org/511582#30 suggests that the maintainer seems to think that we should move away from the codebase. I'm wondering if we should remove the package from the archive entirely as a result of this review. I'm not comfortable NMUing a package with these outstanding concerns. In order to remove the package, we'd have to remove its reverse dependencies, or change them to not need libopie-dev. According to dak, that would be cyrus-sasl2, inetutils and libpam-opie. Is opie an optional dependency for those packages (I'm guessing not for libpam-opie, no idea for the others)? cyrus-sasl2 would need to drop the libsasl2-modules-otp binary package. Hi all, To: Release-Team to get your advice. Assuming that the plan is still to get opie removed from Squeeze (at least), let's try to draw a plan of action towards it. [] A removal bug should be filed against release.d.o (which could serve to keep track of the various things needed for it) [] Reverse Dependencies need to get removed at the same time. This concerns one package: libpam-opie. Removal bug against release.d.o too then. [] Reverse Build-Dependencies need to get fixed or removed, this concerns two other packages: cyrus-sasl2 and cyrus-sasl2-heimdal. This would mean serious (above RC) bugs against them. This would basically mean two removals from squeeze and two serious bugs. May I proceed ? [Resending, I typoed the debian-release mailing list initially] IMO we should ignore this for Squeeze and proceed with removing opie after the Squeeze release. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#511582: Plan of action ?
Le Thursday 4 November 2010 23:40:39 Moritz Muehlenhoff, vous avez écrit : On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:04PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 00:51:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: In particular, i'm concerned that this package has a setuid binary, has had only NMUs since 2004, hasn't been reviewed for recent Standards or debhelper versions, and http://bugs.debian.org/511582#30 suggests that the maintainer seems to think that we should move away from the codebase. I'm wondering if we should remove the package from the archive entirely as a result of this review. I'm not comfortable NMUing a package with these outstanding concerns. In order to remove the package, we'd have to remove its reverse dependencies, or change them to not need libopie-dev. According to dak, that would be cyrus-sasl2, inetutils and libpam-opie. Is opie an optional dependency for those packages (I'm guessing not for libpam-opie, no idea for the others)? cyrus-sasl2 would need to drop the libsasl2-modules-otp binary package. Hi all, To: Release-Team to get your advice. Assuming that the plan is still to get opie removed from Squeeze (at least), let's try to draw a plan of action towards it. [] A removal bug should be filed against release.d.o (which could serve to keep track of the various things needed for it) [] Reverse Dependencies need to get removed at the same time. This concerns one package: libpam-opie. Removal bug against release.d.o too then. [] Reverse Build-Dependencies need to get fixed or removed, this concerns two other packages: cyrus-sasl2 and cyrus-sasl2-heimdal. This would mean serious (above RC) bugs against them. This would basically mean two removals from squeeze and two serious bugs. May I proceed ? Cheers, OdyX -- Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM). CH-1020 Renens did...@raboud.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
