On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:00:10AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 21:25:58 +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > > Ok but I don't see how this bug differs from #915550 and #915876 for both > > > of which the intent seems to remove the corresponding packages. > > > > > > Shouldn't this package also be considered for removal? > > > > Perhaps. We usually leave it a while in case it is upgraded, as the cost > > of having around for "a while" in unstable only is judged cheaper than > > the extra work needed to remove it and then reintroduce it. I think this > > is mostly a matter of personal opinion and we don't have a firm policy > > on this, but I'm sure other list members will correct me if I'm wrong. > > This matches my impression of our habits as well. > > I'd just like to add that the "maintenance cost" can be zero (no > releases, no bugs, no nothing) or can be high (e.g. breakage with > each new perl release) or anything in between. And our habit seems to > be that if there's no or hardly any work needed there's also no > particular need to trigger the removal steps.
Per our new policy[1], we'll remove this after July if no new upstream update appears. [1] <https://perl-team.pages.debian.net/policy.html#Dual-lived_Modules>