>>It's a native package, there's no need to develop a replacement, just fix up the thing we have (or entirely replace it if you wish). Isn't the part in brackets developing a replacement?
If it is broken and no one is working on it, or is willing to work on it, it is effectively orphaned anyway. The important things is there is a working viable system available for users to get the job done. How that is achieved is up to the people doing the heavy lifting of development work. If the maintainer believes it is not fit for release and it won't get fixed then the best solution is to drop it. It is unfortunate that this decision has been made just after the Stretch freeze announcement has been made . I, personally, think the timing of this may make it hard for others who do use it, without problems, yet do not have the necessary skills to take it over. It effectively shuts the door on this package. I myself have used it without problems but prefer to install the image without using the launcher. Cheers. Michael. On 18 November 2016 at 06:15, Iain R. Learmonth <i...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > On the latter I can't really comment, but I would find it very > > > unfortunate if this package would get removed from stretch *now*… > (where > > > there is no time to develop a replacement…) > > > > Why would anyone develop a replacement instead of taking it over? > > It's a native package, there's no need to develop a replacement, just fix > up > the thing we have (or entirely replace it if you wish). > > It does not function with live-wrapper and is broken in strange ways for > live-build. Mostly l10n and weird driver things, neither of which do we > have > the resource to maintain, and I definitely wouldn't want to release this in > stretch. > > I've orphaned it for now, to allow someone else to take over, but "in the > maintainer's opinion it is not fit for release" applies here. > > Thanks, > Iain. > >
