Am 20.06.2015 um 19:51 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz: ld the release back because of such ancient >>> software? > >> OK, so lets drop iceweasel? This is definitly offtopic here > > No, we dropped sparc as a release architecture as a result > in case you missed that.
Because of roaraudio? Oh no? Ok this is a realy related issue here... X affected Y and Z was the result, so roaraudio is affected. Please discuss this with the iceweasel team if you have got enough free time. > >>> They introduced automatic removal of packages affected by RC bugs >>> for this very reason and the fact that DECnet is no longer >>> maintained means that ROAR is permanently at risk being affected >>> by RC bugs unless you think you can fix vulnerabilities or other >>> serious bug in an ancient networking stack. > >> Lets drop package XYZ: it may have got issues we didn't discovered, >> yet.. > > No, let's drop package XYZ which _no_one_ maintains both upstream > and downstream. It's absolutely a common practice in Debian > and happens all the time. > > Here are some examples: > >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=206866 >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=288112 >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=179392 >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=182434 You are just quoting mostly invalid closed reports which are as old as I am :D And it is not my package, just FYI > > I'm sorry Patrick, but I am starting to have doubts that you > know how to do a proper job as a maintainer. You apparently > don't read bug reports (as shown above), you don't know the > details about your *own* packages (you claimed that libdnet > is not a dependency which is simply untrue) and you apparently > have never heard that Debian does, in fact, remove packages > that are either buggy or no longer in active upstream > development. You are open to post to d-d@l.d.o something like "pmatthaei is not able to do Debian work". I will make your life a bit easier and CC'ing d-d now.. It makes no sense but it seems like this is the best way to follow an issue to it's own .... . > > We may really need to forward this to the technical committee > and ask them to make a decision over the removal of the > DECnet dependencies in ROAR as you are apparently completely > out of touch with reality. Please, do it. But *again*: IMMEADITLY STOP(!) adding/quoting/responding me for stuff where I never were responsible for! And also for things like who is my "buddy" or not, especially if they do not know the person at all.. I am just doing my Debian Developer work, also for the roaraudio packages, but it looks again like you and Ron just want to fool.. .. .. ..... -- /* Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards, Patrick Matthäi GNU/Linux Debian Developer Blog: http://www.linux-dev.org/ E-Mail: pmatth...@debian.org patr...@linux-dev.org */
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
