Bug#876908: Is blcr completely useless?

2022-07-31 Thread Bastian Germann
Control: retitle -1 RM: blcr -- RoQA; unmaintained; broken for several releases Control: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org Control: block 575848 by -1 Please remove blcr from Debian. I do not think that there are users left at this point and nobody reacted to Adrian's request. On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:48:

Bug#876908: Is blcr completely useless?

2021-03-05 Thread Adrian Bunk
3.5 years later the situation looks unchanged, please let me know if you see any reason for still keeping blcr in Debian. Adrian On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:52:08PM +0100, Alan Woodland wrote: > On 26 September 2017 at 20:28, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Source: blcr > > Version: 0.8.5-2.1 > > Sev

Bug#876908: Is blcr completely useless?

2017-09-26 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:52:08PM +0100, Alan Woodland wrote: >... > In theory people could still be running old kernels to keep support > alive and if that's the case then we should try to avoid breaking > things, >... The last Debian release with blcr-dkms was wheezy, and #776920 seems to make

Bug#876908: Is blcr completely useless?

2017-09-26 Thread Alan Woodland
On 26 September 2017 at 20:28, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Source: blcr > Version: 0.8.5-2.1 > Severity: serious > Tags: buster sid > > As far as I can see: > 1. blcr is dead upstream since 2013. > 2. blcr requires both userspace and kernel parts. > 3. The -dkms package is removed in unstable. > 4. The

Bug#876908: Is blcr completely useless?

2017-09-26 Thread Adrian Bunk
Source: blcr Version: 0.8.5-2.1 Severity: serious Tags: buster sid As far as I can see: 1. blcr is dead upstream since 2013. 2. blcr requires both userspace and kernel parts. 3. The -dkms package is removed in unstable. 4. The beta version in experimental has an RC bug against the -dkms package