Bug#870936: mediatomb: should mediatomb be removed from unstable?
Control: reassign -1 ftp.debain.org Control: retitle -1 RM: mediatomb -- RoM; dead upstream, obsoleted by gerbera Hi, On 06/08/17 19:00, James Cowgill wrote: > On 06/08/17 09:50, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> Source: mediatomb >> User: debian...@lists.debian.org >> Usertags: qa-removals-post-stretch >> >> Hi, >> >> Following a discussion[1] on the debian-qa@ mailing list on packages that >> missed both jessie and stretch, I am proposing the removal of this package >> from >> unstable, because: >> >> it was in unstable at the time of the stretch freeze >> but wasn't part of stretch >> AND >> it was in unstable at the time of the jessie freeze >> but it wasn't part of jessie >> AND >> it is still not in testing >> AND >> it was not uploaded since the beginning of 2017. > > The answer is: yes it definitely should be removed. > > However, there is a replacement fork called gerbera (which I haven't > finished packaging yet) and I don't want to lose all the open bugs > against mediatomb which may also apply to gerbera. I'm going to try and > finish it some time during DebConf so hopefully this won't be an issue... gerbera is now in unstable, and I've reassigned all of mediatomb's bugs to it. I therefore think mediatomb can be removed now. Thanks, James signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#870936: mediatomb: should mediatomb be removed from unstable?
Hi, On 06/08/17 09:50, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Source: mediatomb > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > Usertags: qa-removals-post-stretch > > Hi, > > Following a discussion[1] on the debian-qa@ mailing list on packages that > missed both jessie and stretch, I am proposing the removal of this package > from > unstable, because: > > it was in unstable at the time of the stretch freeze > but wasn't part of stretch > AND > it was in unstable at the time of the jessie freeze > but it wasn't part of jessie > AND > it is still not in testing > AND > it was not uploaded since the beginning of 2017. The answer is: yes it definitely should be removed. However, there is a replacement fork called gerbera (which I haven't finished packaging yet) and I don't want to lose all the open bugs against mediatomb which may also apply to gerbera. I'm going to try and finish it some time during DebConf so hopefully this won't be an issue... Thanks, James > > If you disagree and think that this package should remain in unstable, feel > free to just close this bug. > > If this bug is still open one month from now (on 2017-09-06), it will be > turned > into a removal request, using: > > reassign -1 ftp.debian.org > retitle -1 RM: mediatomb -- RoQA; missed both jessie and stretch > thanks > > - Lucas, for the QA team. > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2017/07/msg00021.html > > ___ > pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list > pkg-multimedia-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#870936: mediatomb: should mediatomb be removed from unstable?
Source: mediatomb User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: qa-removals-post-stretch Hi, Following a discussion[1] on the debian-qa@ mailing list on packages that missed both jessie and stretch, I am proposing the removal of this package from unstable, because: it was in unstable at the time of the stretch freeze but wasn't part of stretch AND it was in unstable at the time of the jessie freeze but it wasn't part of jessie AND it is still not in testing AND it was not uploaded since the beginning of 2017. If you disagree and think that this package should remain in unstable, feel free to just close this bug. If this bug is still open one month from now (on 2017-09-06), it will be turned into a removal request, using: reassign -1 ftp.debian.org retitle -1 RM: mediatomb -- RoQA; missed both jessie and stretch thanks - Lucas, for the QA team. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2017/07/msg00021.html
