On 10/16, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:58:58PM +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > On 10/16, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:11:41PM +0200, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > > > the libzeromq-perl package has just been deprecated upstream. An > > > > alternative > > > > exists but it has not yet been packaged for Debian (it will at some > > > > point). > > > > > > Is there an imperative for removing this package before its natural > > > successor is packaged? I don't know the package in question but this > > > sounds like a potential unnecessary disruption to any users of the > > > package. > > > > I just don't see the point of including an upstream-abandoned package in a > > stable release when we already know it will be removed in the next one. > > Also, if > > the removal is post-poned it may even get harder to do in future (e.g. if > > other > > packages start depending on it). > > > > Considering that it is a relatively new package (~1.5 years, never been in a > > stable release) and the low popcon I don't think its removal will cause much > > trouble. The more it stays, the more users will use it. > > > > But this is just my thought, I'm very well open to letting it stay. > > Ah, if it's a question of removing it from testing that's a different > matter. Maybe let it stay in unstable for time being in case anyone > is relying on it indirectly?
I guess that for the time being removing the package from testing would be
enough, though I still think that the disruption would be minimal and doing
the removal in two parts is not really worth it.
Feel free to reassign this to release.d.o (I can't right now).
Cheers
--
perl -E '$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
