Re: List of packages that could be dropped
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in them. If not, could we move this packages from our distribution to experimental until they are fixed and a new maintainer for them has been found? tetex depends on dpkg-perl. The WNPP report included backwards dependencies, until Packages-all-non-msdos-names (or whatever the name was) went poof. I haven't had the time to hook things to the new database. -- Marcelo
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On 20001226T152221+0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |malaga (210 days old) Has this package been dropped? No. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote: Hi, Hi Christian, we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated: ... |fnlib (104 days old) Has this package been removed from our distribution? is enlightenment not using it anymore? Or has it just be renamed? If the first is true, can we close the wnpp bug for it or if the last is true, can then someone please rename the bug in wnpp for it? ... fnlib builds the binary packages libfnlib-dev and libfnlib0. These packages are still needed by enlightenment. Ciao Christian cu, Adrian -- A No uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a Yes merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble. -- Mahatma Ghandi
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote: Hi Christian, we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated: ... |fnlib (104 days old) Has this package been removed from our distribution? is enlightenment not using it anymore? Or has it just be renamed? If the first is true, can we close the wnpp bug for it or if the last is true, can then someone please rename the bug in wnpp for it? ... fnlib builds the binary packages libfnlib-dev and libfnlib0. These packages are still needed by enlightenment. FWIW, fnlib has been effectively abandoned upstream; its functionality has been rolled into the Imlib2 library. Of course, no version of enlightenment has yet been released which uses Imlib2, so fnlib is still rather important. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On 00-12-28 Wichert Akkerman wrote: Previously Christian Kurz wrote: |dpkg-scriptlib -- dpkg-perl and dpkg-python (142 days old) Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in them. If not, could we move this packages from our distribution to experimental until they are fixed and a new maintainer for them has been found? tetex depends on dpkg-perl. Hm, could this be the scripts written in sh-syntax. If I remember correctly, they are just doing some file-test and linking. Ciao Christian -- Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgpJb9CsGL9L5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On 00-12-26 Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. You can only remove this if you want sparc to be unbootable, which I hope is not your intention. If it's so important why is still marked as orphaned in wnpp? Or has already some taken over maintainership and just forgotten that there exists the WNPP? Ciao Christian -- Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgp2Ry7P82p50.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On 00-12-27 Jonathan McDowell wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 06:59:16PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. You can only remove this if you want sparc to be unbootable, which I hope is not your intention. Um, I was going to adopt this until I saw: silo (0.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream * Took over silo's packaging -- Erick Kinnee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:23 -0500 Which I assumed meant Erick had done so? Well, if this is really true, then he should have closed the WNPP bug against silo a long time ago already. Ciao Christian -- Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgp3Vw46FI7BV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt wrote: If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC community shows for Debian? What the fuck are you talking about!?! For one the damn thing isn't changed that often. Upstream isn't making frequent updates, and the fucking thing works. You need to find your red herrings some place else. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
In Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:42:49 +0100 Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit : silo (0.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream * Took over silo's packaging -- Erick Kinnee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:23 -0500 Which I assumed meant Erick had done so? Well, if this is really true, then he should have closed the WNPP bug against silo a long time ago already. After a while of running with wnpp in Debian bug system, one thing arises is that it's not very convenient to check. I can check the list of bugs filed against one package, but that package doesn't include the wnpp bug. All those bugs are filed against wnpp. It would be nice if wnpp bugs appear in individual packages' bugs list too. They do belong there... regards, junichi -- University: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Netfort: [EMAIL PROTECTED] dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University. ... Long Live Free Software, LIBERTAS OMNI VINCIT.
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: Hi, |mhash (235 days old) Has this package been dropped from unstable? If yes, can we close the wnpp-bug about it? No. I'm not sure if gorgo orphaned it or not. php4 builds an extension with this library. Dunno, how useful it is though. Maybe I'll take a look at this after Xmas. Petr Cech
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, [iso-8859-1] Petr ech wrote: |mhash (235 days old) No. I'm not sure if gorgo orphaned it or not. php4 builds an extension with he says, `i think i did... about the time when i orphaned php' -- [-] ``And there are plenty of other innovative pieces of software such as Napster and ICQ.'' -- comment on ``Systems Software Research is Irrelevant'' at http://freshmeat.net/news/2000/08/05/965534399.html
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
195 days is a lot of time to have an important package orphaned. At 6 or so months of orphaned-ness, if a maintainer is not found, one should and IMHO must look at the very real at that point possibility of going on without it. If this necessitates further changes as in removal of an entire architecture, then I'd say that it's time to shit or get off the pot, to use the vernacular. It can't be too damned important if nobody steps up and adopts it for ~6.5 months... ATM, though, it's not a real issue, but I think that in addition to the bug horizons, there needs to be a wnpp check on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died during the potato freeze...). On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 07:06:30PM -0700, John Galt wrote: If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC community shows for Debian? What the fuck are you talking about!?! For one the damn thing isn't changed that often. Upstream isn't making frequent updates, and the fucking thing works. You need to find your red herrings some place else. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
Previously Christian Kurz wrote: |dpkg-scriptlib -- dpkg-perl and dpkg-python (142 days old) Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in them. If not, could we move this packages from our distribution to experimental until they are fixed and a new maintainer for them has been found? tetex depends on dpkg-perl. Wichert. -- _ / Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 04:26:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote: 195 days is a lot of time to have an important package orphaned. At 6 or so months of orphaned-ness, if a maintainer is not found, one should and IMHO must look at the very real at that point possibility of going on without it. If this necessitates further changes as in removal of an entire architecture, then I'd say that it's time to shit or get off the pot, to use the vernacular. It can't be too damned important if nobody steps up and adopts it for ~6.5 months... ATM, though, it's not a real issue, but I think that in addition to the bug horizons, there needs to be a wnpp check on a freeze: orphaned packages die during a freeze unless adoped post haste (I can't remember if this means that silo would've died during the potato freeze...). silo (0.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream * Took over silo's packaging -- Erick Kinnee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:23 -0500 No one knew it was on wnpp you idiot. As for your adopt or die, bullshit. Packages are not removed unless they present too many bugs to stay in. Silo had no bugs above normal, only 6 bugs in all, 5 of them were closable as is (already fixed), and the last was wishlist. Put up or shut up (to use your unique vernacular), because if you haven't got anything useful to say, you are just pissing people off. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
List of packages that could be dropped
Hi, we currently have a really huge list of packages that are orphaned and so I looked at them to see if we can drop some of them. Here are some suggestion and my comments. Any comment from you is appreciated: |ppd-gs (1 year and 357 days old) Do we really need this package still for users of alladin ghostscript or is it not needed anymore? |tcp4u (1 year and 81 days old) [Package libtcp4u3] Is this package still useful or can we drop it? |cthugha (1 year and 31 days old) Is this package really used by someone or useful for anything? The description is not very helpful in finding this out. |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. |dip (1 year and 81 days old) Fabrizio, has this package really been taken over? If yes, could you please close the wnpp-bug for it? Thanks. |libmikmod (214 days old) Is any architecture still using libmikmod1 or could we drop this part of the libmikmod package? |rel (1 year and 41 days old) Is this package used by anyone or can we just drop it? |mhash (235 days old) Has this package been dropped from unstable? If yes, can we close the wnpp-bug about it? |guavac (2 years and 53 days old) Can we please drop this package from our distribution as even upstream orphaned this package? |malaga (210 days old) Has this package been dropped? If yes, why and could be please close then the bug about it against wnpp? |admesh (349 days old) Has this package any good purpose or could it be dropped? |dpkg-scriptlib -- dpkg-perl and dpkg-python (142 days old) Is any package using functions of dpkg-perl or dpkg-python? If yes, I think someone should take care of this packages and the bugs that are in them. If not, could we move this packages from our distribution to experimental until they are fixed and a new maintainer for them has been found? |fnlib (104 days old) Has this package been removed from our distribution? is enlightenment not using it anymore? Or has it just be renamed? If the first is true, can we close the wnpp bug for it or if the last is true, can then someone please rename the bug in wnpp for it? |xipmsg (74 days old) Is this piece of software really used this days, where we have, ICQ,AIM,Jabber and other instant messenger tools? Ciao Christian -- Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgpkAkyvCViB5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |ppd-gs (1 year and 357 days old) Do we really need this package still for users of alladin ghostscript or is it not needed anymore? Last time I asked for this to be removed, a few people said this was useful. FWIW. |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. That's because it's SPARC-specific LILO variant, IIRC. |libmikmod (214 days old) Is any architecture still using libmikmod1 or could we drop this part of the libmikmod package? I think we should keep the newer sources for libmikmod, it's useful for one of XMMS plugins :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
In Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:22:21 +0100 Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] cum veritate scripsit : |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. Wasn't this the only method a linux on sparc would boot up? It's rather an important package IMO, should not be removed from the distribution unless an alternative is found... regards, junichi -- University: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Netfort: [EMAIL PROTECTED] dancer, a.k.a. Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer Dept. of Knowledge Engineering and Computer Science, Doshisha University. ... Long Live Free Software, LIBERTAS OMNI VINCIT.
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. You can only remove this if you want sparc to be unbootable, which I hope is not your intention. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 06:59:16PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. You can only remove this if you want sparc to be unbootable, which I hope is not your intention. Um, I was going to adopt this until I saw: silo (0.9.9-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream * Took over silo's packaging -- Erick Kinnee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 4 Sep 2000 10:54:23 -0500 Which I assumed meant Erick had done so? J. -- /-\ | One-seventh of your life is spent |@/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer | on Monday. \- |
Re: List of packages that could be dropped
If it's so important, why is it orphaned? I'm thinking that if the SPARC folx can't be bothered to maintain their bootloader, perhaps the port's utilization of resources needs to be called into question... What's the point in Debian proper showing more support for SPARC than the SPARC community shows for Debian? On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: |silo (195 days old) Has this package been removed from unstable and if yes, why? It's currently still listed in the wnpp but I could find it which apt-cache search silo. You can only remove this if you want sparc to be unbootable, which I hope is not your intention. -- Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
