Quoting Anton Zinoviev (an...@lml.bas.bg): > I agree. I am not against removing c-d. What I don't like is to abuse > 'Breaks' and 'Provides' inapropriately. We must not force our way to > the users, they have the right to install c-d even if the package is > removed from the archive. The number of the affected users may be close > to zero but it is definitely not zero. > > BTW, on my computers I am using packages from old Debian releases that > are no longer available.
I'm sorry but I fail to agree here. The plan is to deprecate c-d because it's not maintained anymore. As Debian developers, our duty is to prevent our users from silently be left unsupported, which is what will happen if, as c-d maintainer, I simply ask it from being removed from the archive. Given that it happened that c-d has been quite widely spread out, we should do our best to avoid that situation and one of the ways to achieve this is by having the package that is really supported to help in this removal. Breaks and Provides are the right way to handle a transition. And that is a transition. Anyway, I more and more feel quite away from what Debian is becoming in some way, so I may finally just ask for c-d to be removed, without caring much more than that (except checking reverse dependencies). The alternative (particularly if we find too many reverse dependencies) being just removing myself from Maintainers, orphaning the package and just say "bye bye"...:-). Which, in some way, is doing exactly what we should not be doing : leave our users in the wild.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
