Processed: Re: Bug#814176: Bug#793492: Bug#814176: azureus: (Build-)Depends on OpenJDK 7

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:

> reassign 870987 ftp.debian.org
Bug #870987 [src:azureus] azureus: should azureus be removed from unstable?
Bug reassigned from package 'src:azureus' to 'ftp.debian.org'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #870987 to the same values 
previously set
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #870987 to the same values 
previously set
> retitle 870987 RM: azureus -- RoQA; missed both jessie and stretch
Bug #870987 [ftp.debian.org] azureus: should azureus be removed from unstable?
Changed Bug title to 'RM: azureus -- RoQA; missed both jessie and stretch' from 
'azureus: should azureus be removed from unstable?'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.
-- 
870987: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=870987
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#793492: Bug#814176: Bug#793492: Bug#814176: azureus: (Build-)Depends on OpenJDK 7

[Markus Koschany]

reassign 870987 ftp.debian.org
retitle 870987 RM: azureus -- RoQA; missed both jessie and stretch
thanks

Am 08.08.2017 um 20:08 schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
> On 08/08/2017 06:44 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> 
>> 1.5 years later this hasn't changed, shall we now drop it?
> 
> Actually there has been a change since upstream has cleared the license
> issues we raised. I still intend to update the package, but I don't mind
> if it has to go through the NEW queue.
> 

Hi,

I completely understand the sentiment that we want to fix bugs instead
of going the easy way and remove packages. However Azureus has already
missed two stable releases and we already had this discussion 1.5 years
ago. At some point we should accept that the package is in a really bad
shape and that it should not even be shipped in unstable because it is
basically unusable.

Mykola Nikishov pointed to the new fork BiglyBT and this one seems to be
more suited for Debian anyway because they removed all those advertising
crap.

Since you are fine with going to NEW again and I would support anybody
else who is really interested in maintaining this package, I think the
removal of azureus makes sense now. Hence I would like to ask the FTP
team to remove azureus from Debian due to the outstanding issues
mentioned in its RC bug reports.

Thank you

Markus



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.

Bug#814176: Bug#793492: Bug#814176: azureus: (Build-)Depends on OpenJDK 7

[Emmanuel Bourg]

On 08/08/2017 06:44 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:

> 1.5 years later this hasn't changed, shall we now drop it?

Actually there has been a change since upstream has cleared the license
issues we raised. I still intend to update the package, but I don't mind
if it has to go through the NEW queue.

Emmanuel Bourg

__
This is the maintainer address of Debian's Java team
. 
Please use
debian-j...@lists.debian.org for discussions and questions.