Your message dated Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:15:27 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#401080: netkit-base: Filed for removal, keep it out of Etch
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: netkit-base
Severity: grave
It's been filed for removal from sid:
Please could you remove netkit-base (netkit-inetd, netkit-ping) from
unstable (and testing once this is possible)?
netkid-base is:
* abandoned upstream for many years
* unmaintained in Debian for two years
* does not build from unpatched upstream source
* upstream source is of poor quality
* it will never support IPv6
* netkit-inetd is superceded in testing and unstable by openbsd-inetd
* netkit-inetd now has no reverse dependencies (other than an alternative
depends in ltsp-server, which is being dealt with; this should not
prevent removal. See #382681 for more detail).
* netkit-ping has three reverse dependencies (mrtg-ping-probe,
heartbeat, heartbeat-2) but all are alternative dependencies. I will
be filing bugs against these three packages, but all allow
iputils-ping as the alternative.
So it should most likely be hinted out of testing.
Cheers,
Moritz
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-1-686
Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 07:43:55PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> It's been filed for removal from sid:
But not by the maintainer.
> * abandoned upstream for many years
> * unmaintained in Debian for two years
> * does not build from unpatched upstream source
> * upstream source is of poor quality
> * it will never support IPv6
> * netkit-inetd is superceded in testing and unstable by openbsd-inetd
> * netkit-inetd now has no reverse dependencies (other than an alternative
> depends in ltsp-server, which is being dealt with; this should not
> prevent removal. See #382681 for more detail).
> * netkit-ping has three reverse dependencies (mrtg-ping-probe,
> heartbeat, heartbeat-2) but all are alternative dependencies. I will
> be filing bugs against these three packages, but all allow
> iputils-ping as the alternative.
> So it should most likely be hinted out of testing.
None of these are release-critical bugs in the package per se. A package
removal request is *not* automatically an RC bug on the package --
particularly not when it's a removal request that isn't sufficient under the
ftp team's policies to actually result in a removal.
Given that the package maintainer is an ftpmaster, I see no reason at all to
keep this bug open. If the maintainer agrees with you he can remove the
package directly from unstable at any time, if he doesn't agree then there's
no bug here whatsoever.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--- End Message ---
