On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 02:30:02PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Given Dominique's reply on #767411, from my POV I think the best
> > solution would be to remove torque completely for jessie (i.e. first
> > drop support from openmpi to be able to remove the package and
> > remaining reverse dependencies).
>
> 4 wheezy DSAs doesn't necessarily sound that horrible, so I don't
> think we're clearly at the point where torque should be considered
> unsupportable. Maybe the patch backports were an incredible amount of
> work?
Well, but the 2.4 branch is already no longer unsupported upstream
and we shouldn't knowingly introduce it into a release which will be
supported for five more years.
> The package does clearly need to be orphaned, so someone can step up
> post-jessie to get the package in sync with upstream.
As written by Dominique that's no possible for license reasons.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
