On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:23:58 +0200 Martin MAURER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The project has been dead for more than a year now. Anyways, apart from > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=433817, which I can > easily solve by removing fireflier-client-gtk, there are no known > problems. > Should I ask for removal of it? Especially as orphaning it would mean a > dead package where no upstream exists either. Plenty of orphaned packages have no upstream (plenty of non-orphaned packages too). It isn't an automatic reason to remove the package. (I liked the look of one package with a dead upstream and took over upstream development - it does happen. Upstream stopped development in 1999, I took over last year. The fact that it took 7 years is besides the point, as long as the package remains usable. A dead upstream makes restarting development quite easy - get the apt source, strip out the generated stuff and start a new RCS of whatever flavour you choose - it's actually less work than picking up development of a half-dead project where you have to ask for commit access and deal with someone else's configuration.) What are the alternative packages? > There has been a security problem recently, which I corrected (see > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=431332) > If someone has the old version installed, and we remove fireflier from > the archives too early, then he might end up with the old version when > he doesn't update too often (thinking of all the testing/unstable > users). If I would remove fireflier, what would be the best way to > handle this issue ? If you just orphan the package, everyone will get the update - providing the orphaned package remains clear of RC bugs. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpVLSpA76XwJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
