On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:03:42AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: > Hi, > > Dominic Hargreaves (2020-11-09): > > A year on, it seems there's almost no realistic prospect of this > > package coming back. Shall we remove it from sid? > > Thank you for caring! > > Quoting the plan I proposed #912860: "I intend to remove libgtk2-perl > from testing soon after the Buster release, and then from sid later > during the Bullseye development cycle". > > In principle, I see value in sticking to the announced timeline, in > order to lower the risk of bad feelings in case any of the > reverse-dependencies' maintainers somehow relied on it. > > In practice, if we removed libgtk2-perl now, I would not expect any > trouble about: > > - asciio (#912870): I filed a RFH, the maintainer won't have time to > do the work themselves > > - gprename (#912880): no reply from maintainer since 2 years > despite 2 pings > > - tinyca (#912889): the maintainer is actively working on a solution > > - libdata-treedumper-renderer-gtk-perl (#912874): maintained by > pkg-perl, only reason why I did not remove it from sid yet is asciio > > However, wrt. libcircle-fe-gtk-perl (#932220), the brief discussion > I had with Andrej at DebConf19 suggests it's a touchy topic. > If someone else, who wants to speed up the removal, takes the lead > here: great (and please check with Andrej). Otherwise, personally I'd > rather avoid the extra effort, and simply stick with the originally > announced timeline.
Thanks for the summary. I got the wrong impression from this bug and didn't spot the merged bugs at all :( We're quite a way through the bullseye development cycle already but I guess you mean once we're into the deep freeze when there is no longer any chance of reviving those packages for bullseye, which makes sense to me. Cheers Dominic
