Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[Daniel Schepler]

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal
Control: retitle -1 RM: tads2-mode -- RoM: obsolete

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:35 AM, oldtechaa  wrote:
> Package: tads2-mode
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 7.7
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> tads2-mode violates Section 7.7 of the Debian Policy Manual, which states that
> packages must include dependencies for the clean rule in Build-Depends rather
> than Build-Depends-Indep.
>
> This package has a number of other packaging issues as well, due to its age of
> over 10 years. It has a very small install base, as popcon shows 10 installs,
> and it is no longer useful due to the deprecation of TADS2 itself. Thus, it
> should be removed from Testing.

Agreed.  Please remove tads2-mode from unstable and testing.
-- 
Daniel Schepler

Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[Daniel Schepler]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:22 AM, oldtechaa  wrote:
> I see you already filed one; never mind.
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:21 PM, oldtechaa  wrote:
>>
>> So should I file an RM: bug instead to remove it from all suites?

For reference: the RM bug is #813336.
-- 
Daniel Schepler

Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[oldtechaa]

I see you already filed one; never mind.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:21 PM, oldtechaa  wrote:

> So should I file an RM: bug instead to remove it from all suites?
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Schepler 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, oldtechaa  wrote:
>> > The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?
>>
>> Only from testing.  As far as I know, there's no process to autoremove
>> packages with RC bugs from unstable - though certainly, an RC bug
>> without any response from the maintainer within a reasonable time
>> could be grounds for removal.
>> --
>> Daniel Schepler
>>
>
>

Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[Daniel Schepler]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, oldtechaa  wrote:
> The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?

Only from testing.  As far as I know, there's no process to autoremove
packages with RC bugs from unstable - though certainly, an RC bug
without any response from the maintainer within a reasonable time
could be grounds for removal.
-- 
Daniel Schepler

Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[oldtechaa]

So should I file an RM: bug instead to remove it from all suites?

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Schepler 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:06 AM, oldtechaa  wrote:
> > The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?
>
> Only from testing.  As far as I know, there's no process to autoremove
> packages with RC bugs from unstable - though certainly, an RC bug
> without any response from the maintainer within a reasonable time
> could be grounds for removal.
> --
> Daniel Schepler
>

Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[oldtechaa]

The package should be autoremoved by an RC bug, correct?

Bug#812926: tads2-mode is out-of-date and should be removed

[oldtechaa]

Package: tads2-mode
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 7.7

Dear Maintainer,

tads2-mode violates Section 7.7 of the Debian Policy Manual, which states that
packages must include dependencies for the clean rule in Build-Depends rather
than Build-Depends-Indep.

This package has a number of other packaging issues as well, due to its age of
over 10 years. It has a very small install base, as popcon shows 10 installs,
and it is no longer useful due to the deprecation of TADS2 itself. Thus, it
should be removed from Testing.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.3
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)