Bug#1027113: RM: childsplay -- RoQA; Python2, unmaintained
RoQA is a standard removal category. Anyone doing QA work can request packages be removed. When clearing up the debris from old library removals this is normal. I requested it (and did the removal) because it was an apparently unmaintained package that depended on libraries being removed. The only other package left in the archive that needs python2 is gps-gnat since it has at least a partial effort at porting to Python 3 in git. You have no idea how common circumstances like this are. They happen routinely and it's extremely rare that there's an issue. I'm happy to collaborate with maintainers such as yourself to rectify the situation in cases where it's needed. Please let me know once it's in New and I'll have a look. If the packages are already gone (dinstall needs to run before they're completely gone) you can download the binaries from snapshot.d.o, build locally, and then do a binary upload (uploads to New need to be with binaries in any case). Scott K On December 28, 2022 12:26:15 AM UTC, Markus Koschany wrote: >Am Dienstag, dem 27.12.2022 um 23:39 + schrieb Scott Kitterman: >> Because it looked untouched for years. It seemed unlikely anyone cares. If >> you want to upload it back (I'd suggest experimental), ping me and I'll look >> at it in New. >> >> Absent porting to Python 3, I don't particularly see the point, but I'll add >> it back if you want. > >I don't recall that someone can remove packages from Debian without the consent >of the maintainer or an explicit decision by the CTTE. We need a procedure not >arbitrariness. > >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=912485#40 > >Who requested the removal of childsplay from Debian? Why is this necessary at >all? > >How can I upload I package to experimental which has not been ported to python3 >yet? > >
Bug#1027113: RM: childsplay -- RoQA; Python2, unmaintained
Am Dienstag, dem 27.12.2022 um 23:39 + schrieb Scott Kitterman: > Because it looked untouched for years. It seemed unlikely anyone cares. If > you want to upload it back (I'd suggest experimental), ping me and I'll look > at it in New. > > Absent porting to Python 3, I don't particularly see the point, but I'll add > it back if you want. I don't recall that someone can remove packages from Debian without the consent of the maintainer or an explicit decision by the CTTE. We need a procedure not arbitrariness. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=912485#40 Who requested the removal of childsplay from Debian? Why is this necessary at all? How can I upload I package to experimental which has not been ported to python3 yet? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1027113: RM: childsplay -- RoQA; Python2, unmaintained
Because it looked untouched for years. It seemed unlikely anyone cares. If you want to upload it back (I'd suggest experimental), ping me and I'll look at it in New. Absent porting to Python 3, I don't particularly see the point, but I'll add it back if you want. Scott K On December 27, 2022 11:33:18 PM UTC, Markus Koschany wrote: >On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 18:15:53 -0500 Scott Kitterman >wrote: >> Package: ftp.debian.org >> Severity: normal >> >> This is the last external rdepend for python-all and needs to go. It >> appears unmaintained both upstream and in Debian. >> >> Scott K > > >Hello Scott, > >why did you remove childsplay from Debian without asking the maintainer for his >consent? > >You don't have to remove childsplay as a reverse-dependency of python-all to >complete the removal request. > >I am aware that childsplay has not been ported to python3 yet. Why can't we >just keep it in Debian (even if uninstallable) for the time being. We all know >that a reintroduction to Debian can take several months. This all seems to be a >lot of make work to me.
Bug#1027113: RM: childsplay -- RoQA; Python2, unmaintained
On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 18:15:53 -0500 Scott Kitterman wrote: > Package: ftp.debian.org > Severity: normal > > This is the last external rdepend for python-all and needs to go. It > appears unmaintained both upstream and in Debian. > > Scott K Hello Scott, why did you remove childsplay from Debian without asking the maintainer for his consent? You don't have to remove childsplay as a reverse-dependency of python-all to complete the removal request. I am aware that childsplay has not been ported to python3 yet. Why can't we just keep it in Debian (even if uninstallable) for the time being. We all know that a reintroduction to Debian can take several months. This all seems to be a lot of make work to me. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1027113: RM: childsplay -- RoQA; Python2, unmaintained
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal This is the last external rdepend for python-all and needs to go. It appears unmaintained both upstream and in Debian. Scott K
