Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-15 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi, I am Nick's sponsor, sorry for the late reply. > removing kismet/2008 from testing/wheezy (while leaving it untouched in > unstable/sid), > uploading kismet/2011 into experimental, > migrating kismet/2011 into unstable/sid (after some testing & polishing), > and finally migrating kismet/2011

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-13 Thread Bob Bib
IMHO, removing kismet/2008 from testing/wheezy (while leaving it untouched in unstable/sid), uploading kismet/2011 into experimental, migrating kismet/2011 into unstable/sid (after some testing & polishing), and finally migrating kismet/2011 into wheezy-backports seems to be a good process idea.

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Nick Andrik
>> I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogonal to the debian one. >> Since ubuntu takes its packages from unstable, whether or not we >> remove the package from stable is irrelevant. > > The bugs for the kismet package in Ubuntu are irrelevant IFF the package in > Wheezy doesn't have these SIGS

Re: Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Chris Knadle
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 18:50:45, Nick Andrik wrote: > >> If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then > >> it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version. > > > > Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3: > >https://launchpad.net/u

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Nick Andrik
>> If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then >> it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version. > > Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3: >https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kismet/+bugs I think that the ubuntu situation is orthogo

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Chris Knadle
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:18:54, Nick Andrik wrote: > 2012/12/12 intrigeri : > > Hi, > > > > Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) : > >> I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be > >> using this version of the package nowadays. > >> On the other hand,

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread intrigeri
Control: tag -1 - moreinfo Hi, Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 17:07:14 GMT) : > Then, yes it is :) OK, thanks for the clarification. So, I think this removal request should be closed. > As of curiosity, even if I push anything to unstable it will not move > to testing because of the freeze pol

Processed: Re: Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > tag -1 - moreinfo Bug #693351 [release.debian.org] RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 693351: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693351 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Nick Andrik
> If you mean "feature requests", then they are not appropriate for > packages shipped in a stable release, so indeed it does not make > sense, and then I gather your answer was a "yes". Then, yes it is :) > If you mean anything else, please clarify :) >> If we need to fix anything then I will h

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread intrigeri
Hi, Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 15:18:54 GMT) : > 2012/12/12 intrigeri : >> OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the upcoming maintainer >> of kismet in Debian, do you want to commit to maintain 2008-05-R1-4.3 >> in stable once Wheezy is released? (as in: dealing with security >> issue

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Nick Andrik
2012/12/12 intrigeri : > Hi, > > Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) : >> I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be >> using this version of the package nowadays. >> On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it. > > OK. I think the ke

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread intrigeri
Hi, Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) : > I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be > using this version of the package nowadays. > On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it. OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the up

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Nick Andrik
>> No. A package which has been removed will always go back through NEW if >> it is reintroduced. After going through the NEW queue, it can go into >> either experimental or unstable. > > Since the discussion has drifted to full removal from the archive, > I'd like to point out that a removal from

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread intrigeri
Hi, Neil Williams wrote (12 Dec 2012 09:16:52 GMT) : >> One should pass through the new queue, the >> other through experimental. > No. A package which has been removed will always go back through NEW if > it is reintroduced. After going through the NEW queue, it can go into > either experimental

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-12 Thread Neil Williams
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:18:18 +0100 Nick Andrik wrote: > First of all I also CC the DD that follows my work on packaging the > new version, since I am not an expert on all debian procedures yet. > > About removing kismet or not, I don't know what are the arguments for > and against. > I need to k

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-11 Thread Nick Andrik
First of all I also CC the DD that follows my work on packaging the new version, since I am not an expert on all debian procedures yet. About removing kismet or not, I don't know what are the arguments for and against. I need to know the exact implications in order to give an informed answer. If

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-12-11 Thread intrigeri
Hi Francois and Nick, Julien Cristau wrote (15 Nov 2012 19:38:51 GMT) : > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 19:39:35 +0200, Bob Bib wrote: >> please remove kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 package from testing, because it's too >> outdated (the latest upstream version is Kismet-2011-03-R2) and unmaintained >> (the 20

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-11-19 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 19:36:58 +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > Also note, there is someone looking for a sponsor of an updated kismet > package: > > http://mentors.debian.net/package/kismet > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670176 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=66

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-11-19 Thread Arno Töll
Also note, there is someone looking for a sponsor of an updated kismet package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/kismet http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670176 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=662105 -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/

Processed: Re: Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-11-15 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > tag -1 moreinfo Bug #693351 [release.debian.org] RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 693351: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=693351 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-11-15 Thread Julien Cristau
Control: tag -1 moreinfo On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 19:39:35 +0200, Bob Bib wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: rm > > Hi release team, > please remove kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 package from testing, because it's too > outda

Bug#693351: RM: kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3

2012-11-15 Thread Bob Bib
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: rm Hi release team, please remove kismet/2008-05-R1-4.3 package from testing, because it's too outdated (the latest upstream version is Kismet-2011-03-R2) and unmaintained (the 2008-05-R1-4.3 versio