On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:07:18PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Jan Niehusmann [Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:25:09 +0200]: > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:47:49AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > > Finally, if there's a strong reason for which your package should not > > > be NMUed, please note so in this bug report. Prospective NMUers will > > > read your reasoning, and will decide if it's strong enough to delay > > > their upload. > > > Not a strong reason, but something to consider: The only package I know > > which did depend on qssl in the past was psi. At the moment, qssl could > > simply be removed, and if nobody speaks up in the next few weeks, I'll > > probably ask the ftp masters to do so. > > Do you feel it necessary to wait a few weeks? I mean, unless you ask > the people who could be interested in it, almost anybody is going to > be reading this bug report.
I guess most people didn't try to upgrade their systems yet and so didn't notice there is a problem. Waiting a few weeks could give them a chance to speak up. > So, what about if I file a bug removal now? Is there a reason to hurry? The only positive effect of removing it soon would be lowering the RC bug count. Jan
