On 28.10.2012 12:52, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi, > > Michael Biebl wrote: >> On 16.06.2012 18:50, Arne Wichmann wrote: >>> Is there any progress on this serious bug? It is now unhandled for more >>> than one year. >> >> update-manager is basically unmaintained atm. > > So what about RFA'ing update-manager then at least? > > Ignoring the epoch, Ubuntu has only lower versions than Squeeze in any > of their releases, even in raring (1:0.174.3 in quantal and raring vs > 0.200.5-1 in squeeze and 0.200.5-2 in wheezy). See [1] and [2]. > > [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=update-manager > [2] http://packages.qa.debian.org/u/update-manager.html > > So Ubuntu explicitly prefers an older version than Debian for years > now despite its a dependency of (at least) ubuntu-desktop. This looks > quite uncommon and suspicious. > > (Or is that even a completely different package but with the same name > in Ubuntu and Debian?) > > So maybe orphaning or even removal from testing is the better solution > than just RFA'ing the package. > > It only seems to have one hard reverse dependency (and a few Suggests > and one second-level Recommends) in Testing currently, i.e. removing > it from testing and hence wheezy shouldn't be too complicated with > regards to reverse dependencies: > > update-notifier depends on update-manager-gnome > > But OTOH 26% popcon installations and 10% votes rather oppose a > removal quite strongly. > > I hence recommend to at least issue an RFA for update-manager.
Not really my call. I'll let Julian comment on this. -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
