Bug#1009281: [Debichem-devel] Bug#1009281: Bug#1009281: Bug#1009281: Should cinfony be removed?
Hi,
On 2022-07-24 21:18, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Did you get any reply? Otherwise let's go ahead with the removal.
I have checked upstream's master branch and it indeed seems to contain
at least some porting to Python 3. I have opened a branch on Salsa
('python3') to attempt to package it. However, the port does not seem to
be complete, as I get syntax errors due to Python 2 syntax.
Best,
Andrius
Bug#1009281: [Debichem-devel] Bug#1009281: Bug#1009281: Should cinfony be removed?
Am Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 09:21:25AM +0200 schrieb Michael Banck: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:38:21AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2022-04-11 01:35, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > Source: cinfony > > > Version: 1.2-4 > > > Severity: serious > > > > > > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: > > > > > > - Still depends on Python 2 and thus removed from testing since 2019 > > > - Dead upstream > > > - No reverse dependencies > > > > Incidentally, I was the last to upload this package. Since 2019 there > > were no uploads, due to aforementioned reasons. I have contemplated > > filing for RM ever since, but did not get to it. I think it is fine to > > remove. If Python 3 port ever happens, we can reintroduce the package then. > > I contacted the author and asked him about it - it seems the master > branch on Github has python3 support, but I didn't look very closely. Did you get any reply? Otherwise let's go ahead with the removal. Cheers, Moritz
Bug#1009281: [Debichem-devel] Bug#1009281: Bug#1009281: Should cinfony be removed?
Hi, On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 08:38:21AM +0300, Andrius Merkys wrote: > Hi, > > On 2022-04-11 01:35, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > Source: cinfony > > Version: 1.2-4 > > Severity: serious > > > > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: > > > > - Still depends on Python 2 and thus removed from testing since 2019 > > - Dead upstream > > - No reverse dependencies > > Incidentally, I was the last to upload this package. Since 2019 there > were no uploads, due to aforementioned reasons. I have contemplated > filing for RM ever since, but did not get to it. I think it is fine to > remove. If Python 3 port ever happens, we can reintroduce the package then. I contacted the author and asked him about it - it seems the master branch on Github has python3 support, but I didn't look very closely. Michael
Bug#1009281: [Debichem-devel] Bug#1009281: Should cinfony be removed?
Hi, On 2022-04-11 01:35, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Source: cinfony > Version: 1.2-4 > Severity: serious > > Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: > > - Still depends on Python 2 and thus removed from testing since 2019 > - Dead upstream > - No reverse dependencies Incidentally, I was the last to upload this package. Since 2019 there were no uploads, due to aforementioned reasons. I have contemplated filing for RM ever since, but did not get to it. I think it is fine to remove. If Python 3 port ever happens, we can reintroduce the package then. Andrius OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1009281: Should cinfony be removed?
Source: cinfony Version: 1.2-4 Severity: serious Your package came up as a candidate for removal from Debian: - Still depends on Python 2 and thus removed from testing since 2019 - Dead upstream - No reverse dependencies If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please just close this bug (and fix the open issues). If you agree with the removal, please reassign to ftp.debian.org by sending the following commands to cont...@bugs.debian.org: -- severity $BUGNUM normal reassign $BUGNUM ftp.debian.org retitle $BUGNUM RM: -- RoM; thx -- Otherwise I'll move forward and request it's removal in a month. Cheers, Moritz
