On Monday, December 05, 2016 07:28:33 PM Neil Roeth wrote: > On 12/05/2016 12:52 PM, Dr. Tobias Quathamer wrote: > > control: tags -1 -moreinfo > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:37:37AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 19:51:44 -0500 Neil Roeth <n...@debian.org> wrote: > >>> Package: ftp.debian.org > >>> Severity: normal > >>> > >>> Please remove the jade source package from which the jade and sp binary > >>> packages are built. They are obsolete and there are replacements > >>> already in Debian, openjade and opensp. > >> > >> The reverse build-depends will have to be migrated first: > >> > >> Checking reverse dependencies... > >> # Broken Build-Depends: > >> aboot: sp > >> mozart: sp > >> pyepl: jade > >> > >> Dependency problem found. > >> > >> Once this is done, please remove the moreinfo tag. > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > I've removed the moreinfo tag because I think that jade can be > > removed. If this is an error on my side, please add the moreinfo tag > > again. > > > > Those three packages all have a serious bug filed, asking for the > > replacement of jade in their Build-Depends: > > > > aboot -- https://bugs.debian.org/832491 > > mozart -- https://bugs.debian.org/837510 > > pyepl -- https://bugs.debian.org/840377 > > > > Moreover, all three packages have been removed from testing because of > > other RC bugs. Unless those other bugs are fixed, they won't be part > > of the next release. > > > > So removing the package jade from unstable would only break those > > packages in unstable -- where they are already severely broken. > > > > And last, not least, the package "jade" has two RC bugs itself -- so > > it will probably soon be scheduled for autorm from testing. > > > > Would this justify the breaking of Build-Depends? > > > > Regards, > > Tobias > > Hi, Scott and Tobias, > > Yes, Tobias nailed it, I went ahead and filed the removal bug for jade > because those dependent packages had already been removed from testing. > Also, he guessed correctly, I received an email two days ago stating > that jade would be autoremoved from testing because of its RC bugs. Is > there any difference between letting it be removed that way vs. having > your team explicitly remove it?
The difference is that we'll remove it from Unstable along with the associated overrides so it can't re-enter Debian without going through New again, not that that particularly matters in this case. If the reverse-build-depends are sufficiently broken, then I agree there's no point in waiting. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
