Le ven. 11 avr. 2025 à 09:51, Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> a écrit :
> Jérémy Lal <kapo...@melix.org> writes: > > >> 1) Now there are no reverse dependencies on golang-step-crypto-dev any > >> more, so I think we could ask for removal of that package from the > >> archive which would resolve https://bugs.debian.org/1100967 > >> > >> jas@kaka:~/dpkg/golang-github-smallstep-crypto$ ssh > >> mirror.ftp-master.debian.org "dak rm -Rn -b golang-step-crypto-dev" > >> Will remove the following packages from unstable: > >> golang-step-crypto-dev | 0.24.0-2 | all > >> Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team <team+pkg...@tracker.debian.org> > >> ------------------- Reason ------------------- > >> ---------------------------------------------- > >> Checking reverse dependencies... > >> No dependency problem found. > >> jas@kaka:~/dpkg/golang-github-smallstep-crypto$ > > > > > > To be careful, the golang-step-crypto-dev should be removed after all its > > previous rdeps have migrated to testing. > > I think this is the case now: > > jas@kaka:~/dpkg/golang-gitlab-gitlab-org-api-client-go$ ssh > mirror.ftp-master.debian.org "dak rm -Rn -b -s=testing > golang-step-crypto-dev" > Will remove the following packages from testing: > golang-step-crypto-dev | 0.24.0-2 | all > Maintainer: Debian Go Packaging Team <team+pkg...@tracker.debian.org> > ------------------- Reason ------------------- > ---------------------------------------------- > Checking reverse dependencies... > No dependency problem found. > jas@kaka:~/dpkg/golang-gitlab-gitlab-org-api-client-go$ > > What do you think about reassigning this bug report to ftp.debian.org > and renaming subject to: > > RM: golang-step-crypto-dev -- RoM; not used, replaced by > golang-github-smallstep-crypto > Once golang-step-crypto-dev is removed from testing/unstable, the > original problem in this bug report should be resolved. > I'm not sure about severity. Technically this is a RC bug in both of > these packages, but the solution to the RC problem is to remove one of > the packages. But I doubt the ftp.debian.org maintainers would regard > this as a RC bug for them? Maybe it is acceptable to lower the severity > hoping the package will be removed soon. But if the removal doesn't > happen soon, it feels weird to have RC buggy packages without a proper > RC bug on them. Helmut, do you have any preference/recommendation? If > someone who understands the bug tracker better than I could do the > rename that would be appreciated. > To avoid the odd-ness of assigning a RC bug to ftp.debian.org, I'd rather create a new Removal Request, then block 1100967 with it ?
