Le Thursday 4 November 2010 23:40:39 Moritz Muehlenhoff, vous avez écrit : > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 06:56:04PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 00:51:43 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > > In particular, i'm concerned that this package has a setuid binary, has > > > had only NMUs since 2004, hasn't been reviewed for recent Standards or > > > debhelper versions, and http://bugs.debian.org/511582#30 suggests that > > > the maintainer seems to think that we should move away from the > > > codebase. > > > > > > I'm wondering if we should remove the package from the archive entirely > > > as a result of this review. I'm not comfortable NMUing a package with > > > these outstanding concerns. > > > > In order to remove the package, we'd have to remove its reverse > > dependencies, or change them to not need libopie-dev. According to dak, > > that would be cyrus-sasl2, inetutils and libpam-opie. Is opie an > > optional dependency for those packages (I'm guessing not for > > libpam-opie, no idea for the others)? > > cyrus-sasl2 would need to drop the libsasl2-modules-otp binary package.
Hi all, To: Release-Team to get your advice. Assuming that the plan is still to get opie removed from Squeeze (at least), let's try to draw a plan of action towards it. [] A removal bug should be filed against release.d.o (which could serve to keep track of the various things needed for it) [] Reverse Dependencies need to get removed at the same time. This concerns one package: libpam-opie. Removal bug against release.d.o too then. [] Reverse Build-Dependencies need to get fixed or removed, this concerns two other packages: cyrus-sasl2 and cyrus-sasl2-heimdal. This would mean "serious" (above RC) bugs against them. This would basically mean two removals from squeeze and two serious bugs. May I proceed ? Cheers, OdyX -- Didier Raboud, proud Debian Maintainer (DM). CH-1020 Renens did...@raboud.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.