Re: Do we ever retire packages?
Remove them. Move them to project/obsolete or some such. Better would be to restructure the archive somehow and name things correctly. I 'm still think something like this would be better: stable/ /admin /base /comm ... stable-extra/ /contrib /non-free - .../non-free /obsolete /experimental /and other names which don't fit in the above unstable/ /admin /base /comm ... unstable-extra/ /contrib /non-free - .../non-free /obsolete /experimental /and other names which don't fit in the above This will leave us two main entries for all the packages in a distribution. The problem with stable and unstable non-free/contrib packages will disappear (they will be included in the releases approach we are following). non-free and contrib will get the same status as the other sections like base, admin and comm c. This will make the structure far more consistent. Erick -- Christopher J. Fearnley|Linux/Internet Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |UNIX SIG Leader at PACS http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf |(Philadelphia Area Computer Society) ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf|Design Science Revolutionary Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller |Explorer in Universe
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
'Michael Meskes wrote:' [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have argued before that a2ps and a2gs are effectively replaced by genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be made for xosview as we now have procmeter. Opinions? Remove them. Move them to project/obsolete or some such. -- Christopher J. Fearnley|Linux/Internet Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] |UNIX SIG Leader at PACS http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf |(Philadelphia Area Computer Society) ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf|Design Science Revolutionary Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller |Explorer in Universe
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
Guy Maor writes (Re: Do we ever retire packages?): On 29 Aug 1996, Kai Henningsen wrote: So, I'd propose a new directory, parallel to contrib and non-free. We could call it dropped or orphaned and include a README saying that these are packages that are no longer supported by the Debian project in any way, and are not recommended, but if you want them, here they are. contrib is an appropriate location for orphaned software. I have added item which are buggy and no longer maintained, but are preserved for backward compatibility, or to the policy manual's list of kinds of package which go in contrib. Ian.
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes (Re: Do we ever retire packages?): ... I would like to have a2gs and a2ps removed. They both have the same Description: text, and scope, ASCII to PostScript filter. For me, a2gs is broken. I filed bug 1112 against it [1], and this bug is still open after 13 months. There are also bugs 3456 and 3848 against it. a2ps does a similar thing, but is in non-free. It has bugs 1874 and 3911 against it. Both programs are _completely surpassed_ by enscript (which used to be called genscript), a _GPL'ed_ program that does more than a2ps and a2gs. I propose, as I did before, that these programs get removed. Unless someone complains, I will, as suggested, file two bugs against ftp.debian.org to have them removed. I disagree. If they really are that broken and noone wants to maintain them, put them in contrib. Unless enscript provides programs a2gs and a2ps which emulate their command line interfaces then it is not a complete replacement. Ian.
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
Ian Unless enscript provides programs a2gs and a2ps which emulate their Ian command line interfaces then it is not a complete replacement. That is a valid point, so I rest my case. -- Dirk Eddelbuttel http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
On 29 Aug 1996, Kai Henningsen wrote: So, I'd propose a new directory, parallel to contrib and non-free. We could call it dropped or orphaned and include a README saying that these are packages that are no longer supported by the Debian project in any way, and are not recommended, but if you want them, here they are. contrib is an appropriate location for orphaned software. Guy
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have argued before that a2ps and a2gs are effectively replaced by
genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be
Please don't do that. Personally, I am used to a2ps and I'm a lot more attached
to my habits than to genscript :-). And I don't see why we should retire a
package just because some other package with similar functionality is provided.
Think of the different flavours of vi which are available as debian packages.
But I see the point that lack of interest might be a reason to retire a
package. I can see two cases in which a package would be considered obsolete:
a) The package is obsolete because the functionality (in the low level sense
of, say, the programs provided) is moved into some other package(s). An example
would be what happened to libgr.
b) A package is orphaned for a long time and similar functionality (in the high
level sense, like genscript vs. a2ps) is provided by another package available.
Or the package is considered to be irrelevant for all but a small minority
which doesn't express its interest. Maybe such a package should be moved into
one directory like {unstable,non-free,contrib}/obsolete for a longer period (to
preserve the effort of debianizing the package in case someone wants to take it
up later). Eventually, packages can get purged from the obsolete directories if
nobody expresses interest in maintaining them.
By moving a package into one of the obsolete directories, the distribution
maintaines and/or the developers express their opinion that a given package is
not sufficiently important from their point of view. At the same time, this
acts as a final call for a new maintainer to step forward and express his
interest in keeping the package alive.
Lukas
---
Dr. Lukas Nellen | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Depto. de Fisica Teorica, IFUNAM |
Apdo. Postal 20-364 | Tel.: +52 5 622 5014 ext. 218
01000 Mexico D.F., MEXICO| Fax: +52 5 622 5015
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I humbly suggest that we establish some sort of policy regarding packages that obsolete and can be retired? Yes, please! I have argued before that a2ps and a2gs are effectively replaced by genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be made for xosview as we now have procmeter. Opinions? Remove them. Michael -- Michael Meskes |_ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | / ___// / // / / __ \___ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ ) Use Debian Linux!| //_/ /_/ //\___/_/ //
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I humbly suggest that we establish some sort of policy regarding packages that obsolete and can be retired? Propose that the package be made obsolete on debian-devel. After the discussion is resolved, file a bug against ftp.debian.org to make the change. Just because packages provide similiar functionality doesn't mean that one is obsolete. You'd have to make the case that one package really is superior in every way to another. Guy
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
Dirk May I humbly suggest that we establish some sort of policy regarding Dirk packages that obsolete and can be retired? Guy Propose that the package be made obsolete on debian-devel. After the Guy discussion is resolved, file a bug against ftp.debian.org to make the Guy change. I would like to have a2gs and a2ps removed. They both have the same Description: text, and scope, ASCII to PostScript filter. For me, a2gs is broken. I filed bug 1112 against it [1], and this bug is still open after 13 months. There are also bugs 3456 and 3848 against it. a2ps does a similar thing, but is in non-free. It has bugs 1874 and 3911 against it. Both programs are _completely surpassed_ by enscript (which used to be called genscript), a _GPL'ed_ program that does more than a2ps and a2gs. I propose, as I did before, that these programs get removed. Unless someone complains, I will, as suggested, file two bugs against ftp.debian.org to have them removed. [1] I also filed that against gs, and it is hence listed as a gs bug. -- Dirk Eddelbuttel http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
Re: Do we ever retire packages?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I humbly suggest that we establish some sort of policy regarding packages that obsolete and can be retired? Yes, please! I have argued before that a2ps and a2gs are effectively replaced by genscript, and that we should remove them. I think a similar case could be made for xosview as we now have procmeter. Opinions? Remove them. I'm not so convinced; while I may agree that xosview is a complete mess, I think the user should still have the choice as to whether to use it or procmeter. (S)
