On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:24 PM Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:07:49PM +0530, Utkarsh Gupta wrote: > > Hey, > > > > There's an RC bug for ruby-websocket ( > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=903448). > > It is also affecting ruby-websocket-parser. > > This is a problem caused by ruby-websocket-parser (I just followed up to > the bug report) > Bah! On looking up ruby-websocket-parser ( https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ruby-websocket-parser), I didn't quite like the condition that package is in. The package has been orphaned and has other issues, too. Perhaps, "unmaintained"? It has no reverse dependencies, either. > Also, I noticed: > > ➜ ~ apt-cache rdepends ruby-websocket > > Reverse Depends: > > ruby-websocket > > > > So since there's no reverse dependency of ruby-websocket, is it a good > > reason to file a RM request for the package? > > IMO: if a package is broken beyond repair, there are no reverse > dependencies and noone cares enough to fix it for a long time, then we > can think about removing it. > The bug was reported with severity: serious on 10th July 2018. It hasn't seen a fix since then. And I am not sure if the maintainer is really willing to take care of the package anymore? In this case, the problem is really in another package. I don't think we > should remove packages that are otherwise useful (a websocket library is > most probably useful to have) just because nothing else in Debian uses > them. People also write their custom applications targetted at Debian (I > do), and even if those applications are never packaged themselves, > having useful libraries in the archive makes that a lot easier. > Duly agreed. But here, one of the package is orphaned and the other is not being actively maintained, perhaps because there is no reason to? We are unable to get help in packages we actively want to maintain, so adding packages that are not required at the moment (has been a while, though) is a burden, no? Best, Utkarsh
