On 31/05/10 15:08, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: > I don't see bugs like these in other languages bindings:
Yes, because I didn't have the time to report them yet. I reported the haskell-gnomevfs one because I saw the ITP and there were no (build-)rdepends. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=normal;archive=0;src=gnome-python;dist=unstable;repeatmerged=0 This one has more than one hundred rdepends. I'll need to check how many import gnomevfs. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=libgnomevfs2-ruby I've just reported a bug for it. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libgnome2-vfs-perl;dist=unstable This one has a few rdepends, but I'll look at it. > And not even in the C library: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=normal;archive=0;src=gnome-vfs;dist=unstable;repeatmerged=0 I maintain it. No need to report an RM bug for it until we get rid of all the rdepends. > The C library description does not even mention that it's deprecated: > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/libgnomevfs2-dev I've just moved it to oldlibs. Will be part of the next upload. > So I don't see a reason to request its removal, or even to change it's > description, since this haven't been done anywhere else in the archive. As > you > said, this is planned to Squeeze + 1, so there's no point in removing it now. Removing a library with hundreds of rdepends is not easily done. I said the removal of gnome-vfs would probably happen by Squeeze + 1 (if not later), but there's no reason to not start working on it *now*. Otherwise we won't be able to remove it until Squeeze + 2... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
