On Monday, February 17, 2020 5:58:14 PM EST Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:05:59PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Here's a thought: > > > > Given the concern Adrian has expressed relative to tahoe-lafs, how about > > if > > someone uploads the relevant packages to experimental: > > > > python-txsocksx -> foolscap -> tahoe-lafs > > > > Then the Unstable rm can go forward, but in the event python2 stays in the > > bullseye release, it's easy to re-introduce. It wouldn't even need to go > > through New. You'd probably want to upload any other depends that might > > drop python2 support as well with a sufficiently high version that they > > won't get removed due to NVIU. > > How would this bring any advantage? > > Sandro seems to be working mainly on testing, and RC bugs already exist > that prevent re-migration to testing.
It would allow for packages to remain in the archive without complicating other removal efforts. Since he is working from Testing (and to a lesser extent Unstable), if the package is in Experimental, it'd be out of the way and unlikely to be futzed with. > > BTW: The Christmas Eve removal in #937449 a few days after removal > from testing and despite maintainer objection might be a good > example how early removal from unstable makes people not happy. We're certainly not perfect. In cases where a package was removed when it shouldn't be, people can ping me on IRC in #debian-ftp and I'll be glad to give it a priority look to get it back in the archive. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
