Bug#930676: goplay: Should this package be removed?
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:06:06 +0200 Julian Andres Klode wrote: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 03:17:41AM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:46:30 +0200 Julian Andres Klode > > wrote: > > > Package: goplay > > > Severity: serious > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > goplay has not received any updates since 2015, it uses libept, > > > which we'd like to get rid of eventually I think, as it's also > > > unmaintained, so I think it would be best to remove it. > > > > I agree with you in general. However, IMHO, can we defer this decision > > to buster +1 or is this really imminent. AFAIK the package works for Buster? > > Sure, we can defer this until after the release. With the release of Buster, looks like it's time to file removal request. I'm sending RM bug to FTP Masters soon. Thanks, Boyuan Yang signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#930676: goplay: Should this package be removed?
> goplay has not received any updates since 2015, it uses libept, > which we'd like to get rid of eventually I think, as it's also > unmaintained, so I think it would be best to remove it. I agree. I think it should be removed. Miry
Bug#930676: goplay: Should this package be removed?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 03:17:41AM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:46:30 +0200 Julian Andres Klode > wrote: > > Package: goplay > > Severity: serious > > > > Hi folks, > > > > goplay has not received any updates since 2015, it uses libept, > > which we'd like to get rid of eventually I think, as it's also > > unmaintained, so I think it would be best to remove it. > > I agree with you in general. However, IMHO, can we defer this decision > to buster +1 or is this really imminent. AFAIK the package works for Buster? Sure, we can defer this until after the release. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#930676: goplay: Should this package be removed?
Hello, On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:46:30 +0200 Julian Andres Klode wrote: > Package: goplay > Severity: serious > > Hi folks, > > goplay has not received any updates since 2015, it uses libept, > which we'd like to get rid of eventually I think, as it's also > unmaintained, so I think it would be best to remove it. I agree with you in general. However, IMHO, can we defer this decision to buster +1 or is this really imminent. AFAIK the package works for Buster? Regards, Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#930676: goplay: Should this package be removed?
Package: goplay Severity: serious Hi folks, goplay has not received any updates since 2015, it uses libept, which we'd like to get rid of eventually I think, as it's also unmaintained, so I think it would be best to remove it. -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers eoan APT policy: (991, 'eoan'), (500, 'eoan'), (500, 'cosmic-security') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.0.0-15-generic (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C.UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C.UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages goplay depends on: ii apt-xapian-index 0.47ubuntu13 pn debtags | debtags ii libc6 2.29-0ubuntu2 ii libcurl3-gnutls7.64.0-3ubuntu2 ii libept1.5.01.1+nmu3build1 pn libept1.5.90 ii libfltk-images1.3 1.3.4-9ubuntu1 ii libfltk1.3 1.3.4-9ubuntu1 ii libgcc11:9.1.0-4ubuntu1 ii libstdc++6 9.1.0-4ubuntu1 ii libxapian301.4.11-1 Versions of packages goplay recommends: pn games-thumbnails goplay suggests no packages. -- debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev ubuntu core developer i speak de, en
