On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:40:13 +0100 Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> wrote: > * Christoph Biedl <debian.a...@manchmal.in-ulm.de> [240302 17:02]: > > Chris Hofstaedtler wrote... > > > > > please remove deborphan. It is stuck, featurewise, in a very old time > > > and does not support many currently available dpkg features properly > > > (multi-arch, versioned provides, etc). > > > > FWIW, deborphan is part of my regular workflow, and while you claim > > it has defects, it works for me pretty well. > > It works "well" if you use it in very limited usecases, yes (like I > did). It doesn't seem to work well for a lot of people using more of > the "features" it has.
Just because it doesn't work for everyone is not a remotely good enough reason to ask for its removal. It works for most people. don't break it for them. > The t64 transition will apparently make deborphan mostly useless in > trixie. > > > [..] > > So: What are the alternatives? How do they work? Are they a drop-in > > replacment or do they introduce new dependencies? Are there feature that > > will be no longer supported? > > release-notes recommends: > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#removing-non-debian-packages Which has nothing to do with what was asked. > Some people seem to recommend debfoster. Which really doesn't provide similar functionality. > > Leaving users in the void about this is just bad style. I totally agree. Not wanting to maintain it is a shitty reason for asking for its removal. If you don't wanna maintain is, just orphan it. Martin-Éric
