Hi, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on amd64.
I wonder if we should remove libnih from Debian. It's orphaned since 2016 and IIRC doesn't have many reverse dependencies anymore. "dak rm" even doesn't argue at all: coccia% dak rm --no-action libnih Will remove the following packages from unstable: libnih | 1.0.3-12 | source libnih-dbus-dev | 1.0.3-12+b2 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x libnih-dbus1 | 1.0.3-12+b2 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x libnih-dev | 1.0.3-12+b2 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x libnih1 | 1.0.3-12+b2 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x nih-dbus-tool | 1.0.3-12+b2 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x Maintainer: Debian QA Group <packa...@qa.debian.org> ------------------- Reason ------------------- ---------------------------------------------- coccia% But a short look through those binary packages most likely having reverse-dependencies (libnih-dbus1 and libnih1), I though found a single reverse dependency not coming from the libnih package: $ apt-cache rdepends libnih1 libnih1 Reverse Depends: libnih-dbus1 libnih1-dbgsym nih-dbus-tool libnih-dev $ apt-cache rdepends libnih-dbus1 libnih-dbus1 Reverse Depends: libnih-dbus-dev libnih-dbus1-dbgsym libldm-priv-common0 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So with just one reverse dependency left and being orphaned since 2016, it's probably time for removal. Cc'ing the package maintainers of the sole reverse dependency I've found, lomiri-download-manager (source package of libldm-priv-common0) for a comment how "needed" libnih is in their package. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE