On 05/15/2016 12:18 PM, Daniel Schepler wrote: > I'm wondering why I don't see bugs filed for the packages that > Build-Depend on jade or sp but have no binary dependencies. From a > quick search of main_Sources I see these source packages Build-Depend > on jade: alex, datapacker, dejagnu, dictionaries-common, > git-buildpackage, gnupg-doc, gstreamer1.0, gtk-doc, kannel, libetpan, > lprng-doc, privoxy, pyepl, scons-doc, twidge. And these source > packages Build-Depend on sp: aboot, bird, docbook2x, iputils, mozart, > pinball, privoxy, sgml-base-doc. (docbook-utils Build-Depends on both > but already has bugs filed.)
Thanks for taking an interest in this and bringing this up. I do have a list of packages (including many of the above) that Build-Depend on jade/sp all of which should have bugs filed against them. The way I was doing it was to look at each package and determine to some extent what needed to be done for each to transition from jade/sp to openjade/opensp. I thought that would be more helpful for each of the maintainers than just filing a bug without any info on how to do the transition. I had some time to do this at the end of last year but have been swamped since, so that's why I have not filed bugs for all of them. I think I'll have some more time starting in a few weeks to continue this removal project. -- Neil Roeth
